KISHAN CHAND AGGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INCOME-TAX arrears amounting to Rs. 5,55,189 fell due from Messrs. Asia Electric Company, Phagwara, respondent No. 4. In order to realize the same, its factory building and the land underneath thereof situated at Phagwara was auctioned by Shri Sukh Dev Singh, Tax Recovery Officer (Income-tax), Amritsar, on May 18, 1969, for a sum of Rs. 96,000 to Kishan Chand Aggarwal, the petitioner--his bid being the highest. On June 11, 1969, the Income-tax Officer, Jullundur, filed his objections under rule 61 of Schedule II of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Schedule" ). Even before these objections of the income-tax department were decided, the Tax Recovery Officer issued the sale certificate to the petitioner on June 24, 1969. The objections of the income-tax department were rejected by him, vide his order dated October 16, 1969. That order was, however, reversed in appeal by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division. A second appeal therefrom at the instance of the petitioner was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, as being incompetent. This led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 3384 of 1972, at the instance of the present petitioner in this court, which was allowed by Jain J. , who after quashing all the abovesaid orders including that of the Tax Recovery Officer, directed the reconsideration of the departmental objections as to the validity of auction sale after giving due opportunity of producing their evidence to both the sides. The Tax Recovery Officer (Income-tax), Jullundur, accepted the objections of respondent No. 1 and set aside the auction sale in question, inter alia, on the grounds: (1) that the Tax Recovery Officer (Income-tax), Amritsar, had put the property in question to auction without first passing the requisite order for sale in Form No. ITCP 12 in pursuance of the provisions of rule 52 (1) of the Schedule ; (2) that the proclamation of sale was not drawn up in accordance with the provisions of rule 53 of the Schedule requiring the same to be in the language of the district, which was in the present case Punjabi, while the proclamation of sale which was issued was in English ; (3) that adequate publicity through beat of drum and issuance of hand-bills had not been made in Phagwara with the result that very few people came to bid which consequently resulted in the property fetching only a paltry sum of Rs. 96,000 when, in fact, it was worth much more; (4) that no reserve price was fixed and, further, the sale was closed hurriedly without giving opportunity to other bidders to increase the bid amount; and finally (5) that full particulars of the property to be auctioned were not mentioned in the sale proclamation as required by the provisions of rule 53 of the Schedule.

(2.) THIS order (annexure "e") dated July 23, 1973, of the Tax Recovery Officer (Income-tax), Jullundur, accepting the objections of respondent No. 1 was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner vide his order (annexure "f") dated October 31, 1973. It is these two orders (annexures "e" and "f") that have been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that both the Tax Recovery Officer and the Additional Commissioner acted in excess of their jurisdiction in entertaining such objections as had not been incorporated in the objection application dated June 11, 1969.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner had sought support for the above contention, even before respondents Nos. 2 and 3, from two decisions of the Lahore High Court, namely, Gopi Chand v. Benarsi Das, AIR 1919 Lah 216 and Volkart Brothers of Karachi v. Ghulam Hamdani, AIR 1932 Lah 576 and one of them being a Division Bench decision, and the point involved the consideration of the view propounded in those decisions, the writ petition in the very first instance was admitted to a Full Bench by my learned brother, Gujral J. , and myself.