ANSHIRAM Vs. TAX RECOVERY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the auction sale of his house held on 14th February 1972 for recovery of arrears of income-tax.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are that recovery proceedings under Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were started against the petitioner on a recovery certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer (Collection) to the Tax recovery Officer. This certificate related to the income-tax dues of the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69. The amount to be recovered under this certificate was Rs. 15,654. The dues for the year 1964-65 were Rs. 13,206 and the remaining amount was for the other years. Petitioner's house was attached some time in November 1971. Proclamation was issued on 16th December 1971 for sale to be held on I9th January 1972. On this date the Tax Recovery Officer adjourned the sale to I4th February 1972 on the ground that the highest bid offered was inadequate to cover the amount of arrears. A proclamation for sale was again issued on 11th February 1972. Respondent No. 3 was the highest bidder on that date and his bid was accepted. The petitioner had in the mean time tiled an appeal to the tribunal in the assessment proceedings for the year 1964-65. On 1st March 1972 the Tribunal passed an interim stay order in the following terms :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised before us only two contentions. The first contention is that the Tax Recovery Officer could not have confirmed the sale on 15th March 1972 because of the stay order passed by the Tribunal and so the order of confirmation should be ignored and it should be held that as the petitioner's appeal was substantially allowed by the Tribunal before any valid confirmation of the sale, the sale became void. The second contention of the learned counsel is that no notice was given to the petitioner before the second proclamation for sale was issued on 11th February 1972 for the notice in respect of this proclamation was served on the petitioner on I2th February 1972 and that the absence of prior notice constitutes a breach of the mandatory provision of rule 53 of Schedule II and so the sale is a nullity.