TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e application and finding that the value of the property was below the market value by 15 per cent. proceeded to pass an order of pre-emptive purchase which is now challenged by the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the constitutional validity of the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act and sought for quashing of the impugned order issued by the authorities dated June 13, 1991, as per annexure C. It is pertinent to state here itself that the constitutional validity of the provisions questioned by the petitioner has been upheld and it was held constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions and in view of the said decision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he did not press the first prayer in the writ petition and he contended that the only question to be considered is as to whether the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard before the impugned orders are passed and as to whether the writ petition deserves to be allowed and remitted to the authorities for reconsideration. Sri Sarangan submitted that in the abovementioned judgment, the Supreme Court has specifically laid down the principle that under the above-mentioned provisions, the question of granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties must be read into the provision. The Supreme Court in the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nor were the reasons for the said order set out in the order or communicated to the petitioner or the other concerned parties with the order. And in view of the same it was held that the order was clearly bad in law and the order was accordingly set aside. However, the Supreme Court next considered as to the consequences to be followed in view of the said finding. It was clarified as follows: "We may clarify that, as far as completed transactions are concerned, namely, where, after the order for compulsory purchase under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act was made and possession has been taken over, compensation was paid to the owner of the property and accepted without protest, we see no reason to upset those transactions and hence, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property and in the, absence of a decree of specific performance of an agreement, even though authorised by the general power of attorney holder of the original owner of the property had no locus standi to move an application for setting aside the auction sale on offer to deposit full tax dues. In Writ Petition No. 17705 of 1991 disposed of on December 17, 1992 his Lordship Justice S. Rajendra Babu, as he then was, has held in similar circumstances, that there is no reason at all to upset the transactions which have already taken place and nothing in the judgment shall invalidate the purchases made by the auction purchasers and other third parties. Further, a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 792 of 1993 disposed of on April 17,199....