9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is happened during the assessment year 1964-65. In the subsequent assessment years, the income from the said property was treated as income in the petitioner's hands and was brought to tax. The petitioner defaulted in paying the tax due. Ultimately, tax recovery certificates were issued to the 1st respondent herein, the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of more than one lakh rupees. Actually three tax recovery certificates were issued. They are dated February 23, 1972, October 5, 1974, and August 19, 1975, respectively. Petitioner's properties at Yanam were brought to sale on March 13, 1984, in pursuance of the sale proclamation issued on February 9, 1984, by the 1st respondent. At the auction, the 4th respondent became the purchaser ; he deposited the entire sale amount within the time prescribed. This writ petition was filed before the sale could be confirmed and stay of confirmation of proceedings was also obtained. The validity of the sale is challenged by the petitioner on the following three grounds ; (i) The 1st respondent has no jurisdiction over Yanam. Therefore, the sale of property situated at Yanam by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction and voi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard. It was stated in this notification that the Tax Recovery Officers shall exercise the functions in relation to the defaulters of the income-tax circles mentioned against each of them in that area. According to the table appended to the notification, the jurisdiction of the Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam, extends, inter alia, over Kakinada Circle-II, Kakinada. From the above notifications, it appears that as far back as 1980, the Tax Recovery Commissioners have issued a notification conferring upon the 1st respondent, the jurisdiction over Kakinada Circle-II and, according to the notifications issued in 1982 aforesaid, Kakinada Circle-II includes the persons residing in and the territory of Yanam. Mr. Sreerama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, then argued that the notification conferring jurisdiction upon the Tax Recovery Officer must have been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and not by the Tax Recovery Commissioners and hence the notification dated. June 20, 1980, relied upon by standing counsel for the Revenue, is not sufficient in law to confer jurisdiction on the first respondent. We are not satisfied about the correctness of the above conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inclined to interfere but not at this late stage. It is well-settled that under article 226, this court is not bound to interfere on each and every illegality or irregularity made out. This court will interfere only if there is failure of justice. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, we do not think that the interests of justice will be served by interfering on the above technical ground. The first contention of learned counsel is accordingly rejected. In so far as the second contention is concerned, we may add that notice contemplated by rule 2 of Schedule 11 to the Income-tax Act is the notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer to the defaulter calling upon him to pay the amount specified in the certificate within 15 days from the date of service of the notice and intimating that in default steps would be taken to realise the amount. The petitioner has not specified the date on which the notice was served upon him by the Tax Recovery Officer. We, therefore, cannot hold that the notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer in this case is without jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner is residing in Yanam and that it is outside the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o says that he has been paying some amounts from time to time. These amounts would have been adjusted both against the principal and interest. We, therefore, do not know whether in fact the tax recovery notices include any pre-certificate interest. Now, even assuming that the recovery certificates include certain amount of pre-certificate interest, the question is whether the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. As stated above, the tax recovery certificates were issued in the years 1972, 1974 and 1975. Except barely alleging that no demand notices for interest as contemplated by rule 118 read with section 156 were served upon the petitioner, no particulars are stated by the petitioner in the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Tax Recovery Officer, it is denied that no such notices were issued. Of course, it is also argued that serving of such notices is not obligatory : non-service does not vitiate the certificates. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner is seeking t raise a factual dispute with respect to what happened or did not happen prior to 1972, it was his duty to state all the facts clearly. In the absenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Supreme Court in Isha Beevi V. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449, that where the total want of jurisdiction is made out, the court should interfere. There can be no dispute about the proposition that when there is a total want of jurisdiction, the court should interfere even at a late stage. But in this case we are not satisfied that there is a total want of jurisdiction on the part of the 1St respondent. Even if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it amounts to jurisdictional irregularity and what we are saying is that in view of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere at this late stage. We may also mention here that the 4th respondent who purchased the property has deposited the entire amount in March, 1984, i.e., about two years and eight months ago and is waiting for the delivery of possession, while the petitioner who has not paid any amount towards the tax due is continuing in possession of the property by virtue of the interim orders of this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly made a request that we must extend the time for paying the amount. We are afraid that this request is made in the wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
