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 purchase order under section 269UD(1) could be sustained when it had been passed without affording the prospective transferors and transferee a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required by the law declared by the Supreme Court. (ii) Whether the Revenue was entitled to fresh directions treating the Form No. 37-I statement as filed on the date of the appellate judgment and allowing the statutory period for further action from that date.
Issue (i): Whether the purchase order under section 269UD(1) could be sustained when it had been passed without affording the prospective transferors and transferee a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required by the law declared by the Supreme Court.
Analysis: The impugned order was examined in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling that an order of compulsory purchase under Chapter XX-C cannot be made unless the affected parties are first given a reasonable opportunity to show cause. The Court found that the admitted facts showed non-compliance with that mandatory pre-decisional hearing requirement. Since the defect went to the root of the order, the earlier purchase order could not be upheld on the merits urged by the Revenue.
Conclusion: The purchase order was rightly quashed and was liable to be treated as void for want of compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement.
Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue was entitled to fresh directions treating the Form No. 37-I statement as filed on the date of the appellate judgment and allowing the statutory period for further action from that date.
Analysis: The Court read the Supreme Court's main directions and supplemental clarification together and held that, where the High Court first sets aside the purchase order by applying the Supreme Court's procedural ruling, the statutory time for further proceedings must run from the date of the appellate court's own decision. The subsequent amendment extending the period from two months to three months was also taken into account. The Court therefore granted the Revenue the benefit of fresh time to proceed, if so advised, in accordance with law and after hearing the parties.
Conclusion: The Revenue was entitled to fresh directions and to a three-month period from the signing of the appellate judgment to take further action under the statute.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the quashing of the purchase order failed, but limited consequential relief was granted to the Revenue for further proceedings in accordance with law after notice and hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
