Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

THAHIRA PAREED Versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT AND OTHERS

2016 (10) TMI 207 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Sale of property conducted by Revenue authorities - property having an extent of 6.59 ares in Sy.No.112/3-1 of Block 67 of Erattupetta village - Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act - attachment of property for recovery of duty with interest - prohibitory order passed by Court on 08/03/2011 - whether the sale could have been confirmed in view of the prohibition in the judgment of this Court in W.P.C.No.7119/2011? - amnesty scheme - Held that: - in the order in W.P.C.No.7119/2011, Court .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation. Even according to the petitioner, he submitted an application for amnesty on 12/03/2011 which was allowed on 17/03/2011. He was granted time to remit the amount on 31/03/2011 and he did not remit the amount. Therefore the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of amnesty. No steps were taken by the revenue authorities after filing an application dated 12/03/2011 and the sale was confirmed only on 29/10/2011 - error on the part of the revenue authorities in conducting sale of property .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

writ petition dismissed - decided in favor of Revenue. - W.P.C.No.22013 of 2015 - Dated:- 25-8-2016 - A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J FOR THE PETITIONER : ADVS. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC, SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN FOR THE RESPONDENT : GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY.K.T. JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities in conducting sale of property having an extent of 6.59 ares in Sy.No.112/3-1 of Block 67 of Erattupetta village. The property was purchased by the Go .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng ₹ 4,33,81,932/- with interest and other charges. At this stage, petitioner had approached this Court and an interim order was passed by this Court directing that sale pursuant to Ext.P7 shall not be confirmed until further orders. 2. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P8 appeal against the order passed for conducting sale pursuant to Ext.P7, which came to be rejected and the petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was conducted on 10/03/2011 when there was a prohibitory order passed by this Court on 08/03/2011. Though it is contended that there was material irregularity in the conduct of sale, no such materials have been produced before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the sale was held without proper notice as contemplated under the statutory provisions. The only question is whether the sale could have been confirmed in view of the prohibition in the judgment of this Court in W.P.C.No.7119/2011. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner is ready and willing to submit such application within a period of one week. It is made clear that if any proper application is received by the first respondent assessing authority, the same shall be considered and disposed of without any further delay, at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such application. 4. If any application as directed above is submitted, within the time stipulated recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ear that in the order in W.P.C.No.7119/2011, this Court had imposed a restriction on further recovery steps to be taken only on an application being submitted by the petitioner. Admittedly, the application was submitted only on 12/03/2011. True that this Court had granted the petitioner seven days' time to submit an application; but the fact remains that recovery steps were to be kept in abeyance only if an application was submitted within the stipulated time and thereafter recovery steps we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gard to the aforesaid factual situation, I do not find any error on the part of the revenue authorities in conducting sale of property and purchasing the property at Re.1/- especially when there were no bidders. 6. Though it is contended that there were material irregularity in the issuance of notice as the publication was not proper, no such grounds have been urged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is therefore apparent that the present writ petition has been filed only to dela .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version