TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nafter referred to as "the Act"), so that they can get the relevant documents registered under the provisions of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The respondent-authorities, by the impugned order dated July 31, 2000, denied the certificate mainly on the ground that certain details of the accounts for the accounting year 1999-2000 were not produced before the authorities and notices dated July 17, 2000, under section 158BC of the Act had been issued to the petitioners, which were served upon the petitioners on July 18, 2000, and the petitioners were required to file their returns in pursuance of those notices. In the circumstances, the petitioners have approached this court with a prayer that necessary certificates under the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant case, as the block assessment is still not over and as no tax demand has been raised, it would not be proper on the part of the respondent-authorities to deny certificates under section 230A of the Act as the petitioners were not liable to pay any amount of tax at the time when they had submitted their applications for the certificates. It has been further submitted that notices under section 158BC had been issued on July 17, 2000, and they were received by the concerned petitioners on July 18, 2000. Even as per the notices, the petitioner-assessees were given time of 20 days to submit the returns. Thus, the petitioner-assessees were supposed to submit their returns, in pursuance of the notices under section 158BC, on or before Augus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly refused. We have heard the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the petitioners could not have been denied the certificates under section 230A of the Act so as to enable the petitioners to get the transfer deeds registered and get the transactions with regard to sale of their properties over. It is crystal clear that at the time when the certificates were refused by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner-assessees were not liable to pay any tax or they were not in arrears so far as payment of tax was concerned. There was no demand with regard to any tax which was unpaid and the said fact has not been disputed even by the learned advocate appearing for the respondents. In our opinion, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
