TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner had in respect of these two properties, namely, No. 4/2-B, Hoodi Village, Mahadevapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, and survey Nos. 35 to 39 (old No. 100) Mayamgutta, B. Narayanapura K. R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore, had deposited a sum of Rs. 9,80,300 on August 24, 1996 and Rs. 82,94,000 on October 9, 1996, corresponding with W.P. No. 39252 of 2002 with reference to property at Sl. No. 9 of annexure B to this writ petition and with reference to property at Sl. No. 5, i.e., survey No. 4/2B Hoodi Village, Mahadevapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, subject matter of W.P. No. 8931 of 2003. It is also averred that the petitioner did not deposit any further amounts thereafter, i.e., did not remit the balance sale price as was required in terms of auction sale conditions and even otherwise, as a buyer at an auction sale is required to deposit after having bid the amount offered the highest price and having so eliminated the other bidders from competition. It is thereafter, several developments have taken place which began as a consequence of non-deposit of balance sale consideration by the petitioner. The version of the petitioner is that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the respondent, whereupon the respondent has entered appearance through his standing counsel. The respondent has also filed the statement of objections denying the petition averments and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions in terms of the statement of objections dated October 16, 2003, supported by an affidavit of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. Several contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner by Sri K.G. Raghavan and Sri Promod Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is firstly contended that the forfeiture order is blatant arbitrary action on the part of the respondent, that it is an order without jurisdiction, that the respondent has no statutory or other power to pass orders of this nature, that the order is a typical example of unfair action on the part of the State; that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order also result in unjust enrichment in favour of the State at the cost of the petitioner particularly as the properties were subsequently sold again through the public auction sale having fetched higher amount than the amounts tendered by the petitioner. It is therefore urged that the respondents ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncluded contract in terms of the provisions of article 329 of the Constitution of India in the absence of there being a written contract, the contract having been not signed by either of the parties and also not a contract in the name of the President of India. In support of the submission that there was no concluded contract and in the absence of contract, no adverse action could have been taken against the petitioner as one of the passing forfeiture orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on these decisions of the Supreme Court and submitted that the power of passing the order cannot be inferred on the premise that there was an implied contract between the petitioner and the respondent in view of the terms and conditions of the sale as had been notified and there cannot be a contract by inference for the purpose of article 329 of the Constitution of India, and if this is the legal and constitutional position, then there is no contract in the eye of law and in the absence of a contract in the eye of law in terms of the provisions of article 329 of the Constitution of India, the Commissioner purporting to be an agent or representative of the President, co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale and to protect the interest of the Revenue and that the entire proceedings having arisen in the context of the provisions of Chapter XXC of the Act, a provision which has been enacted by the Legislature for preventing the evasion of tax liability under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and all actions taken by the Commissioner being incidental and under such statutory provisions, it can never be said that the act on the part of the Commissioner including the order of forfeiture is without jurisdiction. The orders are well sustained by the power under the Act and also in terms of the authorisation issued by the President of India under article 329. In so far as the arguments of arbitrariness are concerned, learned standing counsel has submitted that the petitioner being a person who had participated in auction, having bid knowing fully well the terms and conditions and consequences of non-deposit cannot now call in aid the ground of arbitrariness to cover up its own defaults, that if at all, the petitioner had any other grievance that could have been made the subject-matter of other proceedings and not by becoming a defaulter. The petitioner being a defaulter, it is not ....