AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anish Agarwal, Adv., Ms. Vanshika Gupta, Adv., Ms. Meghna Tandon, Adv., Mr. Ish Karan Singh, Adv., Mr. Shriman Kumar, Adv. And Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR JUDGMENT R. F. NARIMAN, J. Leave granted. The present appeal discloses a very sorry state of affairs in that a property admeasuring 1053.5 square meters bearing Plot No. 27/A, Survey No. 8, 9, 10 Opposite Santacruz Police Station, Junction of Juhu Tara Road and Linking Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-54, though acquired by the Union of India in 1994 under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, could only be sold in 2018. Despite various attempts to sell the property starting in 1994, several auctions conducted qua the said property failed. Even an auction dated 27.03.2017 with a reserve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rves the right to reject any tender form any bid including the highest bid, without assigning any reason. In such an event, the money already paid will be refunded to the intending purchaser without any liability of interest. However, no refunds for amounts forfeited shall be made." Pursuant to the aforesaid, the reserve price being fixed at Rs. 30 crores, the appellant was the sole bidder, having bid at a sum which is Rs. 21 lakhs above the reserve price at a total sum amounting to Rs. 30.21 crores. In its letter dated 26.09.2017, respondent No.3 sent a report to respondent No.2, in which it was stated that though the bid of Rs. 30.21 crores offered by the appellant was above the reserve price, it was yet less than the sum of Rs. 32.11 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., pursuant to the valuation report, on 10.05.2018, a notice for public auction was published with the reserve price fixed this time at Rs. 31.10 crores. On 17.05.2018, the Income Tax Department wrote to the appellant, in which it intimated the fact that a fresh auction was to be conduced on 30.05.2018 and that the appellant should participate in the same. Meanwhile, the appellant being aggrieved by the cancellation of the auction process in which he was the highest bidder at Rs. 30.21 crores, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 21.05.2018. On 23.05.2018, the High Court permitted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct a fresh auction subject to refraining from confirmation of the sale. On 30.05.2018, fresh au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No. 2 highlighting the fact that the decision for conducting fresh auction could not possibly be said to be arbitrary when the appellant himself had earlier offered a higher sum than the amount that was ultimately payable by him in the auction conducted. At every stage, according to the learned senior counsel, valuation reports were taken, and on the basis of such valuation reports, reserve price was fixed. He argued that though it is true that the cancellation letter did not itself contained any reason for cancellation, the reason was forthcoming from the letter dated 06.04.2018, in which it was stated that other properties of a similar nature in the same area was sold for a considerably higher amount, as a result of which the amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnai, and have no reason to doubt what has been stated to be the Fair Market Value in any of these reports. It may also be pointed out that though the appellant was given several opportunities to bid in the fresh auction conducted, ultimately, for reasons best known to him, he chose to refrain from participating in the fresh auction that was conducted. So far as the judgments cited by the appellant are concerned, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever as to the parameters of judicial review in these matters. Broadly speaking, so long as the auction process is conducted bona fide and in public interest, a judicial hands off is mandated by the decisions that have been cited, in particular, 'Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ....