9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 1986. The highest bidder at the auction was one Sri Shiv Kumar, who, on demand, failed to deposit one-fourth of the amount of the bid. Consequently, Sri Sharad Jaiswal, who was the second highest bidder at the said auction, was required to deposit one-fourth of the amount of auction. On that very date, Sri Jaiswal deposited one-fourth of the amount of auction sale. Subsequently, objections were filed by Smt. Gaitri Devi before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate stating that the auction proceedings continued till late at night. The said objections were accepted by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and he, vide his order dated February 13, 1986, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 3 to the writ petition, set aside the auction and directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, Smt. Gaitri Devi, stating that the Income-tax Tribunal has, vide its order dated March 15, 1988, set aside the aforesaid demand of estate duty and has remanded the case to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty for rehearing and disposal of the liability of the petitioner under the Estate Duty Act on the ground that the title deeds with respect to certain properties had not been examined and that the recitals in the will of the deceased had not been properly gone into. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in these two writ petitions. The first submission made by Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order has, been passed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of irregularity. The said ground of irregularity in the auction proceedings has, however, been set aside by the Commissioner by the impugned order. Under the circumstances, therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, is vitiated and suffers from an error of law in not passing an order for the re-auction of the property. The said order, therefore, deserves to be quashed. As regards the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the subsequent facts and the passing of the order dated March 15, 1988, by the Income-tax Tribunal, there is no demand for recovery against the petitioner, I am afraid this matter cannot be gone into by me because the writ petition has not bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
