TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Writ petition dismissed due to delay, lack of details, denied extension of time.</h1> The court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting all three contentions raised by the petitioner. The court emphasized the petitioner's delay in raising ... Revision Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Tax Recovery Officer over Yanam.2. Validity of the notice issued under rule 2 of Schedule 11 to the Income-tax Act.3. Validity of the tax recovery certificates including interest for periods preceding their issuance.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Tax Recovery Officer over Yanam:The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent (Tax Recovery Officer, Visakhapatnam) had no jurisdiction over Yanam, a Union territory, and thus the sale of property situated at Yanam was void. The court reviewed notifications and orders produced by the Revenue, including the Commissioner's Notification dated August 31, 1982, and another notification dated September 20, 1982, which conferred jurisdiction over Yanam to the Income-tax Officer, C Ward, Circle-II, Kakinada. Additionally, the Tax Recovery Commissioners' notification dated June 20, 1980, allocated tax recovery work among Tax Recovery Officers of Andhra Pradesh, including Yanam. The court presumed that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had delegated its power to the Tax Recovery Commissioners, making the notification valid. The court also noted the petitioner's delay in raising this objection, which was first raised nearly 12 years after the issuance of the first tax recovery certificate. Given the petitioner's conduct and the substantial delay, the court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the sale. Therefore, the first contention was rejected.2. Validity of the Notice Issued under Rule 2 of Schedule 11 to the Income-tax Act:The petitioner argued that the notice under rule 2 of Schedule 11 issued by the 1st respondent was invalid due to the lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner did not specify the date on which the notice was served. Since the sale occurred after the conferment of jurisdiction on the 1st respondent, and there was no clarity on where the notice was served (Kakinada or Yanam), the court could not conclude that the notice was bad. Additionally, the petitioner owned properties in Kakinada, and the court could not determine the location of service. Thus, the second contention also failed.3. Validity of the Tax Recovery Certificates Including Interest:The petitioner contended that the tax recovery certificates were invalid as they included interest for the period preceding their issuance without serving notices under rule 118(1) of the Income-tax Rules. Rule 118(1) requires the Income-tax Officer to calculate and serve a notice of demand for interest at the end of each financial year. The court noted the lack of specifics in the writ petition regarding the amount of pre-certificate interest included in the certificates. The court emphasized that the petitioner had not raised this objection earlier and had not provided sufficient particulars. The court also noted that rule 119(1) allows the calculation of interest up to the date of the certificate's issuance. The court presumed that this calculation was done correctly and stated that the petitioner could have approached the concerned Income-tax Officer earlier to address this issue. Given the substantial delay and lack of specific details, the court did not find the argument persuasive. The court also highlighted the petitioner's continued possession of the property despite the sale and the deposit of the sale amount by the purchaser. Thus, the third contention was rejected.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting all three contentions raised by the petitioner. The court emphasized the petitioner's delay in raising objections and the lack of specific details in the petition. The court also noted the purchaser's deposit of the sale amount and the petitioner's continued possession of the property. The request for an extension of time to pay the amount was also denied. The writ petition was dismissed with costs, and the advocate's fee was set at Rs. 500.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
