SHANTIVAN CORPORATION Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the order at annexure 'G' passed by the appropriate on August 26, 1989 under section 269UD(1) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, for the purchase of an immovable property in dispute by the Central Government and prays for consequential reliefs. The petitioner also seeks a direction on respondent No. 1, Sub -Registrar, for registering the sale deed lodged on May 30, 1989.

(2.) THE challenge which was raised by the petitioner against the constitutional validity of Chapter XX -C of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was given up by the petitioner as recorded in the order of the Supreme Court dated May 2, 1990 in IA No. 3 of 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 1714 of 1990. At the hearing of the petition, learned counsel, Mr. J. P. Shah, appearing for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner does not press the question of constitutional validity of any of the provisions of Chapter XX -C of the Act and also gave up the contention that the requirement of the rule of audi alteram partem should be read into the provisions of section 269UD of the Act because such a contention had the implication of going into the constitutional validity of the said provision.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner by learned counsel, Mr. J. P. Shah, that, as the sale deed was already executed and lodged for registered on May 30, 1989, and Chapter XX -C of the Act came into force from June 1, 1989, the provisions of Chapter XX -C could not have been made applicable to the said transfer of property. He submitted that the definition of the word 'transfer' in section 269UA(f) of the Act also covers cases falling under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act where possession is handed over under a writing, and, therefore, even if there was no completed sale deed before June 1, 1989, in view of the fact that the possession was handed over to the petitioner before June 1, 1989, it was a case of deemed transfer before June 1, 1989, and hence the provisions of Chapter XX -C did not apply in the present case. It was also urged that, having regard to the nature of the scheme requiring an agreement for transfer to be entered into at least three months before the intended transfer as prescribed under section 269UC of the Act, it was not possible to make the whole scheme applicable in the present case since the sale deed was already executed prior to June 1, 1989, leaving no scope for any agreement between the parties being entered into as envisaged by section 269UC(1) of the Act.