Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Validity of the order for compulsory purchase under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when no show-cause notice was issued and the reasons for the order were not communicated.
Analysis: The order impugned before the Court was passed in the context of the pre-emptive purchase mechanism under Chapter XX-C after filing of Form No. 37-I. The governing legal position requires that, before an order of compulsory purchase is made, the intending purchaser and the intending seller must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. It is also necessary that the reasons for the decision be recorded and either incorporated in the order or separately communicated to the affected parties, so that the order is a complete and legally effective one. The Court applied the principle that an order made without notice and without disclosure of reasons cannot stand.
Conclusion: The order under section 269UD(1) was set aside as invalid for want of notice and communicated reasons.