9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direction that the Respondent No.1 should determine the consideration payable by the Government including the reduced amount of Rs.1,04,905 and Rs.13,75,000/- being the consideration for the transfer of furniture, fittings and fixtures. The Petitioners have further prayed that the Central Government be directed to make good the loss caused to the Petitioners and pay the amount with interest. It is further prayed by the Petitioners for an injunction restraining the Respondents from proceeding further by way of taking possession of the said property, in pursuance of the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner No.1 had purchased the property being Flat No.6A, 'A' Wing, Gazdar Apartments, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst Respondent on 19th June,1992. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 had sought further information and clarification regarding the agreement between the Petitioners. Therefore on 22nd July,1992, the Petitioners had furnished necessary information and clarification including a copy of the proposed agreement for transfer of furniture to the Respondent No.1. 5. It appears that on 27th August,1992, the Respondent No.1 had passed an order under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, which was received by the Petitioner on 28th August,1992 ordering the purchase of the said property by the Central Government for a consideration of Rs.57,19,095/-. It was stated in the said order that the consideration for transfer of immovable property in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the Petitioners pointed out that the Respondents' show cause notice dated 4th January,1993 was not a show cause notice at all, but an order under Section 269UD(1) of the Act, as the following part makes it clear: "Consequently, we are satisfied that this is a fit case for exercising the pre-emptive right of purchase by the Central Government under Section 269UD(1) of the Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act,1961 and an order under Section 269UD(1) is being passed accordingly." 9. The above portion clearly shows that an order under Section 269UD(1) of the Act is being passed accordingly. 10. Mr. Bhujale also pointed out that the petitioners in their reply dated 19th January,1993 had specifically sought details, particulars of two sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the Petitioners contended that even if the rate of Rs.3325/- per sq.ft. is taken into account, there would be difference of less than 15%. It is also contended that for comparison, Rs.3386/- per sq.ft. should be taken as the rates of the three instances relied on by Appropriate Authority seems to be basic rates. 13. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the comparable transactions in the Gazdar Apartments proving thereby that there was no understatement of consideration, relied upon by the Petitioners were not considered at all. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the instances referred to in the notice issued by the Appropriate Authority were not comparable with the subject prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmalities, which were required to be carried out, were so carried out by the Appropriate Authority and thereafter, a speaking order was passed, wherein the Respondents have recorded reasons for passing such an order. It is the case of the Respondents that while passing the impugned order, adequate care was taken after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Mr. Ashokan contended that the Respondents had personally visited to the site in question before passing the order under Section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act. However, Mr. Ashokan could not controvert the contention of the Petitioners that all relevant materials and particulars relied upon by the Respondents were never furnished to the Petitioners. Mr. Ashokan also could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; pre-determined mind.
17. In the present case, we are fully convinced that it was not a show cause notice, but a pre-determined order, over and above all relevant materials were never furnished to the Petitioners, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
18. The aforesaid judgment of this Court is squarely applicable in the present case. Under these facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above referred Judgment of this Court, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24th February,1993 is quashed and set aside, and the Petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), b(i)(ii) and (c), with costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
