1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
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>Court grants petition, issues writ of certiorari to quash order, directs reconsideration, awards costs.</h1> The court allowed the petition, issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated September 21, 1965. The Tax Recovery Officer was directed to ... Rejection of review application on merely technical grounds was not justified Issues:1. Sale of property subject to encumbrance not disclosed in sale proclamation.2. Forfeiture of security deposit without affording an opportunity to be heard.3. Dismissal of review applications without proper consideration.Analysis:1. The case involved a situation where a property was sold in a tax recovery proceeding without disclosing an existing mortgage on the property in the sale proclamation. The petitioner, who purchased the property, later discovered the encumbrance and sought to set aside the sale due to this material irregularity. The petitioner filed multiple applications pointing out the non-disclosure of encumbrance and requesting the sale to be cancelled or permission to deposit the balance of the purchase money. The Tax Recovery Officer initially rejected these requests, leading to subsequent review applications by the petitioner.2. The petitioner contended that the Tax Recovery Officer did not properly consider the issues raised in the review applications and essentially refused to exercise jurisdiction. The Officer dismissed the second review application citing technicalities such as incorrect dates mentioned in the application. The court held that the Officer failed to apply his mind to the relief sought by the petitioner, which was the quashing of the order forfeiting the security deposit. The court emphasized that the substance of the application should be considered over technical errors, and the Officer's decision was based on form rather than merit.3. Additionally, the court noted that the Tax Recovery Officer wrongly believed he was not competent to reopen proceedings terminated by an earlier order. The Officer failed to address crucial questions raised in the first review application regarding the irregularity in the sale proclamation and the forfeiture of security without a proper hearing. The court highlighted that a second review application is permissible if the first review was not considered on its merits, emphasizing the importance of addressing all relevant issues raised by the petitioner.In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated September 21, 1965. The Tax Recovery Officer was directed to reconsider the second review application properly. The petitioner was awarded costs for the legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
