Case Law Details
There was an attachment levied and the petitioner apprehended that if the time to make payment expires, the auction may follow. Therefore, the request of the petitioner was to extend the time to make payment in installments and if that had been granted, nothing could have been done by the Revenue pursuant to the attachment. If the time was extended and the payment was made, then, the sale could not have taken place at all. In these circumstances, based on the petitioner’s request, no steps were taken. Secondly and more importantly, the Settlement Commission’s order itself was not conclusive until the request, as noted above, was dealt with and disposed of. The payment by installments was a direction incorporated in the order of the Settlement Commission. It is that main order, which has not attained finality, particularly in the light of the application made by the petitioner. If that order was not conclusive within the meaning of Rule 68B and which finding cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the sale of a residential bungalow, which was attached. The relief in that behalf, as set out in prayer clause (b), reads as under:-
“b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any Writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, and after going into the legality, validity and propriety of the sale of the residential bungalow by attachment letters dated 18 February 2013 and 28 April 2016 issued by the Respondent No 2, as also the orders dated 16 January, 2017 and 28th February, 2017 passed by the Respondent No 1; as also letters dated 22 July 2013, 1 November 2016 and 24 January, 2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 be pleased to quash and set aside the said sale, orders and letters;”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
OFFHAND
It is noted that, the Judgment of the Bom, HC, as reported HEREIN, – in Rajiv Yashwant Bhale’ case- is prima facie on the same question of law, though on a different factual matrix, also decided in taxpayer’ favour, recently so, as by the SC in SV Gopal Rao’s case (reported elsewhere)
While on the first blush, the fact that it is so , may not at all be clear by a simple reading of he cited HC Judgment; however, the extract below, is seen to provide sufficient clarity:
“45. To interpret Rule 68 B of the Second Schedule to the IT Act in the above manner would amount to reading of the words “part of” or “portion of” before the phrase “order becoming conclusive” into the said Rule 68B. This is not permitted in the garb of interpretation.”
On that premise, the point of issue, which is a pure and simple but identical “question of law”, within its legal connotation, in both the referred cases, it may be expected , and hoped, with no further procrastination /prolongation, that the SC Judgment in Gopal Rao’s case will be conceded to be a binding ‘precedent’, hence to be followed, in all other cases, including in the Bhale’s case, regardless of the varying factual matrix in a case to case basis, -wherever/ at whatever stage, the same question of law is pending disposal.
It may be worth waiting for, but keeping a close watch, on further developments , in the near future !