MADHUBHAI BHIKHABHAI MINA Vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi for M/s M. R. Bhatt and Co. waives service of rule.

(2.) AT the instance of both the sides, the matter is being finally disposed of. The petitioner challenges the sale proclamation dt. 4th February, 1997, and also the sale of petitioner's property in question held on 25th March, 1997, as per the advertisement published on 12th March, 1997, and seeks a direction on the respondents from selling the property of the petitioner, without issuing a valid proclamation of sale, as provided by the IT Act and the Rules.

(3.) SIMILAR situation had arisen before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2381 of 1997, and the Division Bench vide its order dt. 21st March, 1997 [reported as Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah vs. TRO and Anr.], held that the proclamation in that case issued on 12th March, 1997 could not be allowed to be operated, and the properties of petitioner could not be allowed to be auctioned in pursuance of the notice dt. 12th March, 1997. It was made clear in that case that, the authorities were free to proceed in accordance with law, after settling the proclamation in pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner. There, the date for fixation of terms and conditions of the proclamation was fixed as 31st March, 1997.