TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the impugned pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C was vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory valuation framework and principles of natural justice. (ii) Whether, on setting aside the order, the proper relief was remand or a direction to issue the no objection certificate.
Issue (i): Whether the impugned pre-emptive purchase order under Chapter XX-C was vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory valuation framework and principles of natural justice.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required valuation to be made on the basis of the market value under section 269UA(b)(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the authority was bound to act fairly before invoking compulsory purchase under section 269UD(1). The order was found unsustainable because the authority reduced the building value by adopting an arbitrary 10 per cent deduction on the assumption of efficient construction, instead of applying the market-value basis required by law. The show-cause notice was also defective because the report relied on for the tentative conclusion was not supplied, and only two days were given to reply. The authority further proceeded on new grounds in the final order without issuing a fresh notice, which offended fairness and the requirement of a reasonable opportunity.
Conclusion: The impugned order was illegal and liable to be quashed.
Issue (ii): Whether, on setting aside the order, the proper relief was remand or a direction to issue the no objection certificate.
Analysis: The Court accepted that a writ court is competent to grant affirmative relief in appropriate cases and was not bound to remand the matter merely because the pre-emptive purchase order was quashed. In the circumstances, where the notice and valuation basis were held defective and the transaction had already been delayed, remand was declined and direct consequential relief was considered appropriate.
Conclusion: The Court declined remand and directed issuance of the no objection certificate.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-emptive purchase proceedings succeeded, the acquisition order was set aside, and the Revenue was directed to issue the no objection certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: An order of pre-emptive purchase under Chapter XX-C cannot be sustained if it is founded on an arbitrary valuation method or on a show-cause process that denies the affected party a fair and meaningful opportunity to meet the material relied upon.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
