AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J.
Rule. Mr. M.R. Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
The petitioner challenges the auction advertisement dated March 12, 1997. By that advertisement, the property at item No. 15 was sought to be auctioned on March 27, 1997.
The petitioner submits that under rule 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, a notice was issued for settling a sale proclamation. However, that notice did not fix any date for drawing up the proculamation of sale and settling the terms thereof. He has produced before us a xerox copy of that notice under rule 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the notice was issued on February 4, 1997. The sale proclamation exhibit "B" is also issued on the same day, i.e., February 4, 1997, as seen from exhibit "B". It is, thus, clear that the sale proclamation has been issued without giving any opportunity of hearing for settling the various terms and conditions of the said auction and, therefore, that proclamation, so far as the petitioner''s property at item No. 15 is concerned, cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside. Hence, the impugned proclamation so far as it concerns the petitioner''s property at item No. 15, is set aside, but, the authorities will be free to proceed for recovering the balance amount from the petitioner in accordance with law.
The amount deposited by the petitioner for the principal amount will be credited towards the dues payable by the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.