Pre-emptive purchase valuation must rest on comparable material and consistent reasons; inadequate reasoning led to remand.

Pre-emptive purchase orders under section 269UD(1) require fair market value to be fixed on relevant comparable material with clear and consistent reasons. Where the Appropriate Authority relies on selected transactions but fails to properly consider comparable instances produced by the transferors, and records conflicting findings on apparent consideration and valuation, the statutory threshold cannot be sustained on the existing record. The impugned purchase orders were therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Appropriate Authority for fresh hearing and fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders for pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD(1) could be sustained when the Appropriate Authority had not properly considered the comparable transactions relied on by the transferors and had recorded conflicting findings on apparent consideration and fair market value, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh decision.

Analysis: The valuation exercise had to be supported by relevant material and reasoned comparison with comparable instances. The record showed that the Authority had relied on certain transactions while not properly considering the transactions produced by the petitioners, and the reasons for fixing fair market value were inadequate. The order also reflected inconsistency between the net apparent consideration and the figure adopted for pre-emptive purchase, indicating non-application of mind. In these circumstances, the conclusion that the difference exceeded the statutory threshold could not be sustained on the existing material.

Conclusion: The impugned purchase orders were unsustainable and were set aside, with the matter remanded to the Appropriate Authority for fresh hearing and fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of quashing the pre-emptive purchase orders, but the parties were relegated to a fresh adjudication before the Appropriate Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-emptive purchase order under section 269UD(1) cannot stand unless the fair market value is fixed on relevant comparable material with clear reasons and consistent findings; failure to do so warrants setting aside and remand.

---