M/s Gokal Chand Rattan V. Union of India and Others

CWP/2104/1989

AI Insights

The case revolves around the auction of properties owned by the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of M/s Gokal Chand Rattan, conducted by the TRO to recover tax dues. The petitioner challenged the auction, arguing that the demand was based on an incorrect assessment and that proper legal procedures were not followed. The court examined the legality of the auction process, the validity of the tax demand, and the adherence to procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and related rules. The court's decision emphasized the need for strict compliance with legal procedures in tax recovery auctions and the protection of property rights against arbitrary state action.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 811815 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. Union of India, Janatha Textiles vs. Tax Recovery Officer, Guruswamy Nadar vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal, Baijnath Sahai vs. Ramgut Singh, Satyapal Uttamchand Chowdhary vs. Rukayyabai Huseinbhai Bandukwala, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P., State of Gujarat vs. Essar Oil Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRIDHI SANDHU; AKSHAY BHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RADHIKA SURI; ABHINAV NARANG
• Keywords: Auction of Properties; Demand notice; Ex parte order; Hindu Undivided Family; Income Tax Officer; Reassessment; Recovery Certificate; Tax Recovery; Tax Recovery Officer
• Section: 147; 226(3); 222(1); 256(2); 224(2); 224(3); 225(4)

Judgement Text

"144 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s Gokal Chand Rattan Union of India and CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate M for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Adit Garg, Advocate for r Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate, Mr. Bhavnik Mehta, Advocat Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.12. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. SUBMISSION 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition as a member of the Hindu Undivided Family IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Reserved on: 22.04.2024. Date of Decision: M/s Gokal Chand Rattan Chand Vs. Union of India and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate and Mr. Sidhant Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents-UOI. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Adit Garg, Advocate for respondent Nos.8, 10 and 11. Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate, Mr. Bhavnik Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.12. *** PRAKASH SHARMA, J. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition as a member of the Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter referred to as ‘HUF’) assailing the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2104-1989 (O&M) Reserved on: 22.04.2024. Date of Decision: 27.05.2024 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SUDEEPTI SHARMA Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate with and Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Senior Standing Counsel for the Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yugank Goyal, Advocate and espondent Nos.8, 10 and 11. Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Avneet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Gautam Pathania, Advocate, e and Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.12. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition as a member of the (hereinafter referred to as ‘HUF’) assailing the The petitioner has preferred this writ petition as a member of the (hereinafter referred to as ‘HUF’) assailing the RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 auction of sale conducted by the respondents of the properties owned by the HUF and individually by the members of the HUF to recover the tax assessed against the HUF. 2. Briefly, the contentions raised Rattan Trust was a non on 28.03.1942. It is of Rs.5 Lakh was received by the trust in January, 1946 individual. The assessment for the years 1946 completed on 06.09.1946, which reflected the receipt of the aforesaid donation of Rs.5 Lakh. The Income Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ITO’) had completed the assessment of and exemptions certificates were duly granted to the trust on 14.06.1947, 08.01.1952 and 01.09.195 3. The original assessment of the years 1946 06.09.1946 on a total income of Rs.97,789/ seventeen years reopened the assessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) demand of Rs.5 Lakh had emanated from the petitioner HUF, resulting in total imposition of tax o 31.10.1964, passed by the ITO (Special Investigation Circle, Amritsar), Camp, New Delhi. 4. On 27.07.1967, dated 31.10.1964, came to be allowed by the Appel Commissioner of Income Tax ‘F’ Range, New Delhi 1989 (O&M) [2]-16680-2005 auction of sale conducted by the respondents of the properties owned by the HUF and individually by the members of the HUF to recover the tax assessed against the HUF. Briefly, the contentions raised Rattan Trust was a non-charitable trust created by registered deed executed on 28.03.1942. It is asserted that besides other donations, donation for a sum of Rs.5 Lakh was received by the trust in January, 1946 . The assessment for the years 1946 completed on 06.09.1946, which reflected the receipt of the aforesaid donation of Rs.5 Lakh. The Income Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as had completed the assessment of and exemptions certificates were duly granted to the trust on 14.06.1947, 952 and 01.09.1959. The original assessment of the years 1946 06.09.1946 on a total income of Rs.97,789/ seventeen years reopened the assessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) demand of Rs.5 Lakh had emanated from the petitioner HUF, resulting in total imposition of tax on income of Rs.6,01,789/ 31.10.1964, passed by the ITO (Special Investigation Circle, Amritsar), Camp, New Delhi. On 27.07.1967, the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 31.10.1964, came to be allowed by the Appel Commissioner of Income Tax ‘F’ Range, New Delhi 2005 (O&M) auction of sale conducted by the respondents of the properties owned by the HUF and individually by the members of the HUF to recover the tax assessed Briefly, the contentions raised by the petitioner are that the charitable trust created by registered deed executed that besides other donations, donation for a sum of Rs.5 Lakh was received by the trust in January, 1946 from Gokal Chand . The assessment for the years 1946-1947 of the HUF was completed on 06.09.1946, which reflected the receipt of the aforesaid donation of Rs.5 Lakh. The Income Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as had completed the assessment of the trust for the years 1947-48 and exemptions certificates were duly granted to the trust on 14.06.1947, The original assessment of the years 1946-47 was completed on 06.09.1946 on a total income of Rs.97,789/-. However, the ITO after seventeen years reopened the assessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and held that the demand of Rs.5 Lakh had emanated from the petitioner HUF, resulting in n income of Rs.6,01,789/- under the order dated 31.10.1964, passed by the ITO (Special Investigation Circle, Amritsar), the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 31.10.1964, came to be allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ‘F’ Range, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to auction of sale conducted by the respondents of the properties owned by the HUF and individually by the members of the HUF to recover the tax assessed e charitable trust created by registered deed executed that besides other donations, donation for a sum nd 1947 of the HUF was completed on 06.09.1946, which reflected the receipt of the aforesaid donation of Rs.5 Lakh. The Income Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as 48 and exemptions certificates were duly granted to the trust on 14.06.1947, 47 was completed on ITO after seventeen years reopened the assessment order under Section 147 of the the demand of Rs.5 Lakh had emanated from the petitioner HUF, resulting in under the order dated 31.10.1964, passed by the ITO (Special Investigation Circle, Amritsar), the appeal filed by the petitioner against order late Assistant (hereinafter referred to RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 as ‘the AAC’) Bench ‘C’, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ITAT’) by the department deletions. 5. A reference was the Hon’ble Delhi High Court the decision of the A remanded back to the ITAT. The ITAT thereafter passed an ex against the petitioner upholding the assessment. Based on the ex demand notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.07.1979 certificate was issued setting aside the ex 07.03.1979 was set aside and the case was posted for rehearing consideration 6. Vide order dated 11.04.1983, the ITAT after considering all aspects, again upheld the assessment and action of the ITO under Section 147 of the ACT and the appeal of the revenue was accepted. The petitioner submitted a reference under Section 256(2) o 11.04.1983 to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the same was admitted. 7. It is stated that the petitioner recovery certificate and the demand notice dated 23.07.1979 and recovery certificate dated 14.12.1979 to the TRO. It was contended that the demand notice and the tax recovery certificate were defective and had become 1989 (O&M) [3]-16680-2005 as ‘the AAC’). On 16.10.1968, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ITAT’) by the department assailing the order dated 27.07.1967 A reference was made under Section 256 (2) of the Act, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. It was answered in favour of the revenue the decision of the AAC and ITAT were set aside a remanded back to the ITAT. The ITAT thereafter passed an ex against the petitioner upholding the assessment. Based on the ex demand notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.07.1979 certificate was issued on 14.12.1979. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and on 29.04.1980, was set aside and the case was posted for rehearing consideration by the ITAT. Vide order dated 11.04.1983, the ITAT after considering all aspects, again upheld the assessment and action of the ITO under Section 147 of the ACT and the appeal of the revenue was accepted. The petitioner submitted a reference under Section 256(2) o 11.04.1983 to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the same was admitted. It is stated that the petitioner submitted objections against the recovery certificate and the demand notice dated 23.07.1979 and recovery dated 14.12.1979 to the TRO. It was contended that the demand notice and the tax recovery certificate were defective and had become 2005 (O&M) , the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ITAT’) dismissed the appeal filed assailing the order dated 27.07.1967 and upheld the made under Section 256 (2) of the Act, 1961 to was answered in favour of the revenue and C and ITAT were set aside and the matter was The ITAT thereafter passed an ex-parte order on 07.03.1979 against the petitioner upholding the assessment. Based on the ex-parte order, demand notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.07.1979 and a recovery . The petitioner moved an application for parte order and on 29.04.1980, ex parte order dated was set aside and the case was posted for rehearing for de-novo Vide order dated 11.04.1983, the ITAT after considering all aspects, again upheld the assessment and action of the ITO under Section 147 of the ACT and the appeal of the revenue was accepted. The petitioner submitted a reference under Section 256(2) of the Act against order dated 11.04.1983 to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the same was admitted. submitted objections against the recovery certificate and the demand notice dated 23.07.1979 and recovery dated 14.12.1979 to the TRO. It was contended that the demand notice and the tax recovery certificate were defective and had become , the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi dismissed the appeal filed ld the to and nd the matter was parte order on 07.03.1979 parte order, and a recovery . The petitioner moved an application for ex parte order dated novo Vide order dated 11.04.1983, the ITAT after considering all aspects, again upheld the assessment and action of the ITO under Section 147 of the ACT and the appeal of the revenue was accepted. The petitioner f the Act against order dated submitted objections against the recovery certificate and the demand notice dated 23.07.1979 and recovery dated 14.12.1979 to the TRO. It was contended that the demand notice and the tax recovery certificate were defective and had become RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 meaningless after the ex parte order dated 07.03.1979 was set aside. Since the basis of the demand notice dated 23.07.1979, recovery certificate was also based on the same order, which had been set aside, the TRO had no jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery certificate. It was also pointed out that the interest amounting to Rs.7,0 have been included in the recovery certificate by calculating the interest from an earlier date and the proclamation of sale for recovery of Rs.14,16,283/ was therefore, on the higher side. The public auction was sought to be cancelled by submitting t the subsequent sale of properties for recovery of tax of Rs.14,16,283/ be cancelled. It was also objected that from the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate, a sum of the same was shown as outstanding wrongfully. Apart from sum of Rs.1,20,000/ of rent, therefore, the same was required to be deducted from the total as shown in the recovery certificate. Another objection was raised after the auction has been conducted of the properties which were held on 3 pointing out that dated 14.12.19 ITO had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate under Section 222 (1) of the Act; (c) tax paid at the time of original assessment had not been deducted; (d) no formal demand notice was issued 1989 (O&M) [4]-16680-2005 meaningless after the ex parte order dated 07.03.1979 was set aside. Since the basis of the demand notice dated 23.07.1979, recovery certificate was also based on the same order, which had been set aside, the TRO had no jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery certificate. It was also pointed out that the interest amounting to Rs.7,0 have been included in the recovery certificate by calculating the interest from an earlier date and the proclamation of sale for recovery of Rs.14,16,283/ was therefore, on the higher side. The public auction was sought to be cancelled by submitting that since the amount had become non est, therefore, the subsequent sale of properties for recovery of tax of Rs.14,16,283/ be cancelled. It was also objected that from the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate, a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- the same was shown as outstanding wrongfully. Apart from 1,20,000/- had also been recovered from the tenants by attachment of rent, therefore, the same was required to be deducted from the total as in the recovery certificate. Another objection was raised after the auction has been conducted of the properties which were held on 3 pointing out that (a) that the certificate issued by the ITO District VIII (3) dated 14.12.1979, for proclamation of sale was invalid and illegal; (b), the ITO had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate under Section 222 (1) of the Act; (c) tax paid at the time of original assessment had not been deducted; (d) no formal demand notice was issued by the ITO before sending the recovery 2005 (O&M) meaningless after the ex parte order dated 07.03.1979 was set aside. Since the basis of the demand notice dated 23.07.1979, was the order of the ITAT and recovery certificate was also based on the same order, which had been set aside, the TRO had no jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery certificate. It was also pointed out that the interest amounting to Rs.7,04,476/- could not have been included in the recovery certificate by calculating the interest from an earlier date and the proclamation of sale for recovery of Rs.14,16,283/- was therefore, on the higher side. The public auction was sought to be hat since the amount had become non est, therefore, the subsequent sale of properties for recovery of tax of Rs.14,16,283/- should It was also objected that from the amount mentioned in the had already been deposited but the same was shown as outstanding wrongfully. Apart from Rs.2,45,000/-, a had also been recovered from the tenants by attachment of rent, therefore, the same was required to be deducted from the total as Another objection was raised after the auction has been conducted of the properties which were held on 31.10.1985 and 15.11.1985, (a) that the certificate issued by the ITO District VIII (3) 79, for proclamation of sale was invalid and illegal; (b), the ITO had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate under Section 222 (1) of the Act; (c) tax paid at the time of original assessment had not been deducted; (d) by the ITO before sending the recovery meaningless after the ex parte order dated 07.03.1979 was set aside. Since the was the order of the ITAT and recovery certificate was also based on the same order, which had been set aside, the TRO had no jurisdiction to proceed with the recovery certificate. It not have been included in the recovery certificate by calculating the interest from - was therefore, on the higher side. The public auction was sought to be hat since the amount had become non est, therefore, should It was also objected that from the amount mentioned in the lready been deposited but , a had also been recovered from the tenants by attachment of rent, therefore, the same was required to be deducted from the total as Another objection was raised after the auction has been , (a) that the certificate issued by the ITO District VIII (3) 79, for proclamation of sale was invalid and illegal; (b), the ITO had no jurisdiction to issue the certificate under Section 222 (1) of the Act; (c) tax paid at the time of original assessment had not been deducted; (d) by the ITO before sending the recovery RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 certificate to the TRO; (e) the TRO had not served any notice under Rule 2 for payment of tax; (f) the properties were not attached under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule; (g) the proclamation order was issued on 07.10. the date of au 30 days of the date of proclamation which was in violation of Rule 55 of the Act, (h) the proclamation of the sale does not mention any reserve price and the proclamation been made to the TRO apart from the original tax paid of Rs.43,000/ that the properties situated at Link Road were with the administrator of estate of Rattan Chand and was not belonging to HU 8. The TRO vide its order dated 12.12.1985 rejected the objections and the additional objection as noticed above under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961. It was held that under Section 224 of the Act, 1961, the TRO assessment nor recovery certificate. The TRO also refused to accept the contentions that the recovery certificate and the demand notice stood ITAT dated 07.03.1979, had been recalled. 9. The petitioner challenged the order of the TRO in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, on 16.04.1987, credit for the tax already paid was allowed and the assessment order was rect waived and refund of the demand originally raised. However, the appellate authority did not take 1989 (O&M) [5]-16680-2005 certificate to the TRO; (e) the TRO had not served any notice under Rule 2 for payment of tax; (f) the properties were not attached under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule; (g) the proclamation order was issued on 07.10. uction was fixed 29.10.1985 and 30.10.1985, which were within 30 days of the date of proclamation which was in violation of Rule 55 of the Act, (h) the proclamation of the sale does not mention any reserve price and the proclamation was for Rs.14,16,283/- while payment of Rs.2.5 Lakh had been made to the TRO apart from the original tax paid of Rs.43,000/ that the properties situated at Link Road were with the administrator of estate of Rattan Chand and was not belonging to HU The TRO vide its order dated 12.12.1985 rejected the objections and the additional objection as noticed above under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961. It was held that under Section 224 of the Act, 1961, the TRO was not empowered to examine the correctness of the assessment nor was he empowered to change the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate. The TRO also refused to accept the contentions that the recovery certificate and the demand notice stood ITAT dated 07.03.1979, had been recalled. The petitioner challenged the order of the TRO in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, on 16.04.1987, credit for the tax already paid was allowed and the assessment order was rect waived and refund of Rs,1,24,085/- was granted to the petitioner demand originally raised. However, the appellate authority did not take 2005 (O&M) certificate to the TRO; (e) the TRO had not served any notice under Rule 2 for payment of tax; (f) the properties were not attached under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule; (g) the proclamation order was issued on 07.10.1985 and ction was fixed 29.10.1985 and 30.10.1985, which were within 30 days of the date of proclamation which was in violation of Rule 55 of the Act, (h) the proclamation of the sale does not mention any reserve price and while payment of Rs.2.5 Lakh had been made to the TRO apart from the original tax paid of Rs.43,000/- and (i) that the properties situated at Link Road were with the administrator of estate of Rattan Chand and was not belonging to HUF Gokal Chand Rattan Chand. The TRO vide its order dated 12.12.1985 rejected the objections and the additional objection as noticed above under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961. It was held that under Section 224 of the Act, was not empowered to examine the correctness of the he empowered to change the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate. The TRO also refused to accept the contentions that the recovery certificate and the demand notice stood non est after the order of the The petitioner challenged the order of the TRO in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, on 16.04.1987, credit for the tax already paid was allowed and the assessment order was rectified. The interest was was granted to the petitioner in respect of demand originally raised. However, the appellate authority did not take certificate to the TRO; (e) the TRO had not served any notice under Rule 2 for payment of tax; (f) the properties were not attached under Rule 48 of the 1985 and ction was fixed 29.10.1985 and 30.10.1985, which were within 30 days of the date of proclamation which was in violation of Rule 55 of the Act, (h) the proclamation of the sale does not mention any reserve price and while payment of Rs.2.5 Lakh had and (i) that the properties situated at Link Road were with the administrator of estate The TRO vide its order dated 12.12.1985 rejected the objections and the additional objection as noticed above under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961. It was held that under Section 224 of the Act, was not empowered to examine the correctness of the he empowered to change the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate. The TRO also refused to accept the contentions that the after the order of the The petitioner challenged the order of the TRO in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, on 16.04.1987, credit for the tax already ified. The interest was in respect of demand originally raised. However, the appellate authority did not take RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 into consideration the facts which occurred during the intervening period and dismissed the appeal on 17.05.1988. Against the order passed by the TRO dated 12.12.1985 and appellate order of dismissal dated 17.05.1988, the present writ petition was filed. On 27.0 an interim order restraining the auction purchasers from raising construction or demolishing the property, whereafter admitted and the interim order was purchasers on their own risk to raise construction. That while writ petition was pending before this Court, the reference pending before the Delhi High Court was answered in favour of the assessee vide order dated 15.05.2 under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, were h reassessment order and consequential action The ITAT accordingly in terms of the order of the Delhi High Court modified its order dated 11.04.1983 and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed and the order of the AAC passed in favour of the petitioner dated 27.07.1967, was upheld by its order dated 20.02.2009. 10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submit of the TRO is wholly illegal and unjustified. It is submitted that the TRO could not have rejected the bound to have passed an order by correcting the recovery certificate. Once, it was brought to his knowledge that the ex parte order of the ITAT stood set 1989 (O&M) [6]-16680-2005 into consideration the facts which occurred during the intervening period and dismissed the appeal on 17.05.1988. Against the order passed by the TRO dated 12.12.1985 and appellate order of dismissal dated 17.05.1988, the present writ petition was On 27.02.1989, this Court while issuing notice of motion passed an interim order restraining the auction purchasers from raising construction or demolishing the property, whereafter on 05.12.1989, the writ petition was admitted and the interim order was modified by putting the auction purchasers on their own risk to raise construction. That while writ petition was pending before this Court, the reference pending before the Delhi High Court was answered in favour of the vide order dated 15.05.2008 and the entire proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, were h assessment order and consequential actions The ITAT accordingly in terms of the order of the Delhi High rt modified its order dated 11.04.1983 and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed and the order of the AAC passed in favour of the petitioner dated 27.07.1967, was upheld by its order dated 20.02.2009. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submit of the TRO is wholly illegal and unjustified. It is submitted that the TRO could not have rejected the objections filed by the petitioner and he was bound to have passed an order by correcting the recovery certificate. Once, it t to his knowledge that the ex parte order of the ITAT stood set 2005 (O&M) into consideration the facts which occurred during the intervening period and Against the order passed by the TRO dated 12.12.1985 and appellate order of dismissal dated 17.05.1988, the present writ petition was .1989, this Court while issuing notice of motion passed an interim order restraining the auction purchasers from raising construction 05.12.1989, the writ petition was modified by putting the auction purchasers on their own risk to raise construction. That while writ petition was pending before this Court, the reference pending before the Delhi High Court was answered in favour of the and the entire proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act, 1961, were held to be bad in law and the were also held to be bad in law. The ITAT accordingly in terms of the order of the Delhi High rt modified its order dated 11.04.1983 and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed and the order of the AAC passed in favour of the petitioner dated 27.07.1967, was upheld by its order dated 20.02.2009. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the TRO is wholly illegal and unjustified. It is submitted that the TRO filed by the petitioner and he was bound to have passed an order by correcting the recovery certificate. Once, it t to his knowledge that the ex parte order of the ITAT stood set into consideration the facts which occurred during the intervening period and Against the order passed by the TRO dated 12.12.1985 and appellate order of dismissal dated 17.05.1988, the present writ petition was .1989, this Court while issuing notice of motion passed an interim order restraining the auction purchasers from raising construction 05.12.1989, the writ petition was modified by putting the auction That while writ petition was pending before this Court, the reference pending before the Delhi High Court was answered in favour of the and the entire proceedings initiated eld to be bad in law and the were also held to be bad in law. The ITAT accordingly in terms of the order of the Delhi High rt modified its order dated 11.04.1983 and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed and the order of the AAC passed in favour of the petitioner dated s that the action of the TRO is wholly illegal and unjustified. It is submitted that the TRO filed by the petitioner and he was bound to have passed an order by correcting the recovery certificate. Once, it t to his knowledge that the ex parte order of the ITAT stood set RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 aside, he should have referred the recovery certificate and the demand notice to the assessing officer for correcting the same and for evaluation to be calculated accordingly. More so, as par recovered by way of attachment of rent and deposits HUF, it is submitted that the TRO violated rule 52 (2) of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961, by not issuing a proclamation in the language of the district. It is submitted that rule 53(c) of the Second Schedule was also violated as the amount sought to be recovered proclamation notice. R 55 of the Second Schedule Second Schedule 2 was also not served on the petitioner. There was also non Rules 10 and 11 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The amount which alr stood deposited was also not mentioned. She submits that pendency of the reference before the Delhi High Court under 1961, was sufficient reason for the TRO to property which is to be used property has resulted in great loss to the petitioner. More so, as he has been stating since beginning that he was not required to pay any tax which ultimately has been found correct 15.05.2008. Learned counsel submits that doctrine of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, purchasers who were having full knowledge of the case pending before the 1989 (O&M) [7]-16680-2005 aside, he should have referred the recovery certificate and the demand notice to the assessing officer for correcting the same and for evaluation to be calculated accordingly. More so, as part of the amount had already been recovered by way of attachment of rent and deposits HUF, it is submitted that the TRO violated rule 52 (2) of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961, by not issuing a proclamation in the language of e district. It is submitted that rule 53(c) of the Second Schedule was also violated as the amount sought to be recovered proclamation notice. Reserve price was also not mentioned 55 of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961, Second Schedule of the Act, 1961, requiring 15 days notice in terms of Rule 2 was also not served on the petitioner. There was also non Rules 10 and 11 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The amount which alr stood deposited was also not mentioned. She submits that pendency of the reference before the Delhi High Court under was sufficient reason for the TRO to stay property which is to be used as a last resort. The action of selling of the property has resulted in great loss to the petitioner. More so, as he has been stating since beginning that he was not required to pay any tax which has been found correct by the Delhi High Court i Learned counsel submits that doctrine of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, purchasers who were having full knowledge of the case pending before the 2005 (O&M) aside, he should have referred the recovery certificate and the demand notice to the assessing officer for correcting the same and for evaluation to be t of the amount had already been recovered by way of attachment of rent and deposits from the members of the HUF, it is submitted that the TRO violated rule 52 (2) of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961, by not issuing a proclamation in the language of e district. It is submitted that rule 53(c) of the Second Schedule was also violated as the amount sought to be recovered was not mentioned in the eserve price was also not mentioned, therefore, Rule ct, 1961, was violated. Rule 56 of the requiring 15 days notice in terms of Rule 2 was also not served on the petitioner. There was also non-compliance of Rules 10 and 11 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The amount which already stood deposited was also not mentioned. She submits that pendency of the reference before the Delhi High Court under Section 256 (2) of the Act, stay his hands from auctioning the as a last resort. The action of selling of the property has resulted in great loss to the petitioner. More so, as he has been stating since beginning that he was not required to pay any tax which by the Delhi High Court in its order dated Learned counsel submits that doctrine of lis pendens in terms of 1882, would apply as the auction purchasers who were having full knowledge of the case pending before the aside, he should have referred the recovery certificate and the demand notice to the assessing officer for correcting the same and for evaluation to be t of the amount had already been the members of the HUF, it is submitted that the TRO violated rule 52 (2) of the Second Schedule of the Act, 1961, by not issuing a proclamation in the language of e district. It is submitted that rule 53(c) of the Second Schedule was also in the ule was violated. Rule 56 of the requiring 15 days notice in terms of Rule compliance of eady stood deposited was also not mentioned. She submits that pendency of the of the Act, his hands from auctioning the as a last resort. The action of selling of the property has resulted in great loss to the petitioner. More so, as he has been stating since beginning that he was not required to pay any tax which n its order dated in terms of the auction purchasers who were having full knowledge of the case pending before the RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 Delhi High Court and the property being under litigation, had knowingly purchased the property to be strangers or 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, not create any title irrespective of whether the purchaser had any notice or not of the legal proceedings going on and she relies passed by the Supreme Court in (D) and others It is further submitted that provisions of Section 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961, would operate anterior to Rule 61 case there was an error in the recovery certificate or any question arises, the same ought to have been corrected by sending it to ITO after the information was already received and before the demand was enforced in terms of Section 224 (3) and 224 of the Act, 1961. Learned counsel submits that after the ITAT passed a fresh order when on 11.04.1983, it was necessary petitioner as issuing orders of recovery but the 224 (3) of the Act, 1961 (2) to pay the defaulted amount. Learned counsel relies on vs. Bihari Lal Baldeo Prashad and others 95 ITR 339 Union of India vs. declared as nullity as the same was issued to enforce a fictitious demand 1989 (O&M) [8]-16680-2005 h Court and the property being under litigation, had knowingly purchased the property pendent lite would not be entitled to claim themselves to be strangers or bona fide purchasers. She submits that in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, purchase made not create any title irrespective of whether the purchaser had any notice or not of the legal proceedings going on and she relies passed by the Supreme Court in Guruswamy Nadar vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal D) and others 2008 (5) SCC 796. It is further submitted that provisions of Section 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961, would operate anterior to Rule 61 case there was an error in the recovery certificate or any question arises, the same ought to have been corrected by sending it to ITO after the information was already received and before the demand was enforced in terms of Section (3) and 224 of the Act, 1961. Learned counsel submits that after the ITAT passed a fresh order when the High Court remanded the case to it i.e. on 11.04.1983, it was necessary to issue as issuing of a fresh demand notice was a issuing orders of recovery but the respondents did not 224 (3) of the Act, 1961 nor they provided 15 days notice (2) to pay the defaulted amount. Learned counsel relies on vs. Bihari Lal Baldeo Prashad and others 95 ITR 339 Union of India vs. Jardine 118 ITR 112. She submits that the sale certificate deserves to be declared as nullity as the same was issued to enforce a fictitious demand 2005 (O&M) h Court and the property being under litigation, had knowingly would not be entitled to claim themselves purchasers. She submits that in terms of Section purchase made pendent lite would not create any title irrespective of whether the purchaser had any notice or not of the legal proceedings going on and she relies upon the judgment Guruswamy Nadar vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal It is further submitted that provisions of Section 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961, would operate anterior to Rule 61A of the Act, 1961, and in case there was an error in the recovery certificate or any question arises, the same ought to have been corrected by sending it to ITO after the information was already received and before the demand was enforced in terms of Section (3) and 224 of the Act, 1961. Learned counsel submits that after the the High Court remanded the case to it i.e. to issue a fresh demand notice to the issuing of a fresh demand notice was a sine qua non before espondents did not act in terms of Section they provided 15 days notice in terms of Rule 12 (2) to pay the defaulted amount. Learned counsel relies on Ram Sarup Gupta vs. Bihari Lal Baldeo Prashad and others 95 ITR 339, which was upheld in She submits that the sale certificate deserves to be declared as nullity as the same was issued to enforce a fictitious demand h Court and the property being under litigation, had knowingly would not be entitled to claim themselves purchasers. She submits that in terms of Section would not create any title irrespective of whether the purchaser had any notice or on the judgment Guruswamy Nadar vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal It is further submitted that provisions of Section 224 and 225 of of the Act, 1961, and in case there was an error in the recovery certificate or any question arises, the same ought to have been corrected by sending it to ITO after the information was already received and before the demand was enforced in terms of Section (3) and 224 of the Act, 1961. Learned counsel submits that after the the High Court remanded the case to it i.e. a fresh demand notice to the before of Section of Rule 12 Ram Sarup Gupta , which was upheld in She submits that the sale certificate deserves to be declared as nullity as the same was issued to enforce a fictitious demand RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 which was already paid to certain extent as ultimately the Delhi High Court has found the tax demand to b consequential order, the petitioner illegally and wrongfully taken from auction conducted to realize the tax demand suffers from illegalit mandatory rules were violated, the sale auction deserves to be declared a nullity in the eyes of law. She relies on the judgment vs. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. 1979 vs. Commissioner of Incom Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. Union of India and others AIR 1988 SC 1777 Mohan Wahi vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Varanasi and others SCC 362, Chinnamal and others vs. P. Arumugham and another SCC 513, Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh, SCC 131, Satyapal Uttamchand Chowdhary vs. Rukayyabai Huseinbhai Bandukwala and another S.C. Suit No.769 of 1975 Lakshmi Ammal (D) and others Civil Appeal No.6764 of 2001 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others CA No.5282 of 2002 State of Gujarat and others vs. Essar Oil Limited and another Civil Appeal No.599 of 2012 11. Learned senior counsel respondent No.7, who had purchased 1/5 Restaurant, in auction, has object and locus-standi petition through its ‘ 1989 (O&M) [9]-16680-2005 which was already paid to certain extent as ultimately the Delhi High Court has found the tax demand to be non-existent, and the ITAT also passed a consequential order, the petitioner is entitled to the property which was illegally and wrongfully taken from him. She submits that since the sale auction conducted to realize the tax demand suffers from illegalit mandatory rules were violated, the sale auction deserves to be declared a nullity in the eyes of law. She relies on the judgment vs. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. 1979 (2 vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and others (2001) 248 ITR 266 (P&H) Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. Union of India and others AIR 1988 SC 1777 Mohan Wahi vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Varanasi and others Chinnamal and others vs. P. Arumugham and another Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh, Satyapal Uttamchand Chowdhary vs. Rukayyabai Huseinbhai Bandukwala and another S.C. Suit No.769 of 1975 Lakshmi Ammal (D) and others Civil Appeal No.6764 of 2001 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others CA No.5282 of 2002 State of Gujarat and others vs. Essar Oil Limited and another Civil Appeal No.599 of 2012. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, respondent No.7, who had purchased 1/5th share of the property of Restaurant, in auction, has objected to the maintainability of the writ petition standi of the petitioner, stating that the petitioner through its ‘karta’, Inderjit Kapoor. After the auction, two objection 2005 (O&M) which was already paid to certain extent as ultimately the Delhi High Court existent, and the ITAT also passed a entitled to the property which was . She submits that since the sale auction conducted to realize the tax demand suffers from illegalities and mandatory rules were violated, the sale auction deserves to be declared a nullity in the eyes of law. She relies on the judgment in Income Tax Officer 2) SCC 455, Baldev Singh Giani e Tax and others (2001) 248 ITR 266 (P&H), Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. Union of India and others AIR 1988 SC 1777, Mohan Wahi vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Varanasi and others 2001 (4) Chinnamal and others vs. P. Arumugham and another 1990 (1) Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh, 1994 (1) Satyapal Uttamchand Chowdhary vs. Rukayyabai Huseinbhai Bandukwala and another S.C. Suit No.769 of 1975, Guruswamy Nadar vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal (D) and others Civil Appeal No.6764 of 2001, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others CA No.5282 of 2002, State of Gujarat and others vs. Essar Oil Limited and another Civil Appeal Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, appearing for share of the property of Kwality to the maintainability of the writ petition tating that the petitioner-HUF has filed the , Inderjit Kapoor. After the auction, two objection which was already paid to certain extent as ultimately the Delhi High Court existent, and the ITAT also passed a entitled to the property which was . She submits that since the sale ies and mandatory rules were violated, the sale auction deserves to be declared a Income Tax Officer Baldev Singh Giani , , 2001 (4) 1990 (1) 1994 (1) Satyapal Uttamchand Chowdhary vs. Rukayyabai Huseinbhai Guruswamy Nadar vs. P. South , State of Gujarat and others vs. Essar Oil Limited and another Civil Appeal appearing for ality to the maintainability of the writ petition the , Inderjit Kapoor. After the auction, two objection RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 petitions were filed by Anand Parkash Kapoor, coparcener and Sham Sunder Kapoor, another coparcener and brother of Anand Parkash Ka the objectors have claimed that the property which the respondent No.7 has purchased, does not belong to HUF and it actually belongs to estate of Rattan Chand and if maintainable. He su maintainable as the HUF has no in auction by respondent No.7. He relies on Bihar 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 831 must establish that he has a title to the any infringement of his fundamental rights relies on Satyanarayana Sinha vs. S. Lal and Company (1 Charanjit Lal Chaudhary vs. UOI, AIR 1951 SC 3 Madan Gopal Gungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 is the foundation of exercise of jurisdiction. He has further submitted that passed on 31.10.1964 deleted the entire addition CIT (A) on 16.10.1968 in reference against the order under Section 260 (1) of the Act, 1961, on 07.03.1979. recalled on 29.04.1980 by the ITAT, whereafter, on 11.04.1983 fresh order against the petitioner by the assess 1989 (O&M) [10]-16680-2005 petitions were filed by Anand Parkash Kapoor, coparcener and Sham Sunder Kapoor, another coparcener and brother of Anand Parkash Ka the objectors have claimed that the property which the respondent No.7 has does not belong to HUF and it actually belongs to estate of Rattan Chand and if it is so, the present petition filed by HUF would not be maintainable. He submits that the writ petition filed by HUF would not be maintainable as the HUF has no locus-standi in auction by respondent No.7. He relies on Bokaro and Rambur vs. State of Bihar 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 831, in support of his contention that the petitioner must establish that he has a title to the property before he can complain any infringement of his fundamental rights Satyanarayana Sinha vs. S. Lal and Company (1 Charanjit Lal Chaudhary vs. UOI, AIR 1951 SC 3 Madan Gopal Gungta, AIR 1952 SC 12, to submit that the existence of right is the foundation of exercise of jurisdiction. He has further submitted that passed on 31.10.1964 and on 27.07.1967, the 1 deleted the entire additions on merits and ITAT had affirmed the order of CIT (A) on 16.10.1968. On 23.12.1977, the Delhi High Court passed an order in reference against the assessee and on remand order under Section 260 (1) of the Act, 1961, on 07.03.1979. recalled on 29.04.1980 by the ITAT, whereafter, on 11.04.1983 fresh order against the petitioner-assessee, which was take by the assessee to the High Court. The High Court passed an order on 2005 (O&M) petitions were filed by Anand Parkash Kapoor, coparcener and Sham Sunder Kapoor, another coparcener and brother of Anand Parkash Kapoor and both the objectors have claimed that the property which the respondent No.7 has does not belong to HUF and it actually belongs to estate of Rattan it is so, the present petition filed by HUF would not be bmits that the writ petition filed by HUF would not be to claim the property purchased Bokaro and Rambur vs. State of , in support of his contention that the petitioner property before he can complain of to hold the property. He also Satyanarayana Sinha vs. S. Lal and Company (1973) 2 SCC 696, Charanjit Lal Chaudhary vs. UOI, AIR 1951 SC 30 and State of Orissa vs. o submit that the existence of right He has further submitted that original assessment order was n 27.07.1967, the 1st Appellate Authority had on merits and ITAT had affirmed the order of the Delhi High Court passed an order on remand, the ITAT passed an ex parte order under Section 260 (1) of the Act, 1961, on 07.03.1979. The same was recalled on 29.04.1980 by the ITAT, whereafter, on 11.04.1983, ITAT passed e, which was taken up in reference ee to the High Court. The High Court passed an order on petitions were filed by Anand Parkash Kapoor, coparcener and Sham Sunder poor and both the objectors have claimed that the property which the respondent No.7 has does not belong to HUF and it actually belongs to estate of Rattan it is so, the present petition filed by HUF would not be bmits that the writ petition filed by HUF would not be to claim the property purchased Bokaro and Rambur vs. State of , in support of his contention that the petitioner of to hold the property. He also , State of Orissa vs. o submit that the existence of right sment order was Appellate Authority had on merits and ITAT had affirmed the order of the Delhi High Court passed an order ex parte The same was passed n up in reference ee to the High Court. The High Court passed an order on RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 15.05.2008, in favour of the assessee setting aside the proceedings initiated against the assessee. under Section 260(1) of the Act, 1961, 27.07.1967. He further submits that the original assessment order cannot be termed as nullity the Delhi High Court. He further submits that at the maximum assessment order order of assessment was never declar that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction Central Potteries vs. State of Maharashtra an order passed by an authority which has jurisdiction over the matter but has assumed it otherwise, then in the mode prescribed by law is not a nullity and can be termed as a mere irregularity and the Delhi High Court has presumed that the department could not prove that reasons were recorded before issuance of notice and thus the order of assessment cannot be declared as a nullity. It was further submitted in the written submissions filed by the demand raised on 31.10.1964, was revived on 23.07.1979. Apart from the original tax demand amount of Rs.4,94,372/ demand of notice i.e. Rs.7,04.476/ Rs.11,98,848/ the Act, 1961, for a sum of Rs.11,98,848/ 1989 (O&M) [11]-16680-2005 15.05.2008, in favour of the assessee setting aside the proceedings initiated against the assessee. On 20.02.2009, the ITAT passed consequential orders under Section 260(1) of the Act, 1961, upholding the CIT (A) order dated He further submits that the original assessment order cannot be termed as nullity as there is no such findings arrived at by the CIT (A) or by the Delhi High Court. He further submits that at the maximum assessment order was illegal as proper procedure was not adopted and the order of assessment was never declared nullity as it is not stated that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction Central Potteries vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1966 SC 932 an order passed by an authority which has jurisdiction over the matter but has assumed it otherwise, then in the mode prescribed by law is not a nullity and can be termed as a mere irregularity and the Delhi High Court has at the department could not prove that reasons were recorded before issuance of notice and thus it was having jurisdiction and, therefore, the order of assessment cannot be declared as a nullity. It was further submitted in the written submissions filed by the demand raised on 31.10.1964, was revived on 23.07.1979. Apart from the original tax demand amount of Rs.4,94,372/ demand of notice i.e. Rs.7,04.476/- was also added creating a total demand of Rs.11,98,848/- on 14.12.1979, a recovery certificate under Section 222(1) of the Act, 1961, for a sum of Rs.11,98,848/- was forwarded to the TRO. 2005 (O&M) 15.05.2008, in favour of the assessee setting aside the proceedings initiated the ITAT passed consequential orders holding the CIT (A) order dated He further submits that the original assessment order cannot be there is no such findings arrived at by the CIT (A) or by He further submits that at the maximum it can be said that the was illegal as proper procedure was not adopted and the ed nullity as it is not stated anywhere that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction. He relies on AIR 1966 SC 932, to submit that an order passed by an authority which has jurisdiction over the matter but has assumed it otherwise, then in the mode prescribed by law is not a nullity and can be termed as a mere irregularity and the Delhi High Court has only at the department could not prove that reasons were recorded t was having jurisdiction and, therefore, the order of assessment cannot be declared as a nullity. It was further the learned Senior Counsel that the demand raised on 31.10.1964, was revived on 23.07.1979. Apart from the original tax demand amount of Rs.4,94,372/-, interest upto the date of was also added creating a total demand of on 14.12.1979, a recovery certificate under Section 222(1) of was forwarded to the TRO. 15.05.2008, in favour of the assessee setting aside the proceedings initiated the ITAT passed consequential orders holding the CIT (A) order dated He further submits that the original assessment order cannot be there is no such findings arrived at by the CIT (A) or by it can be said that the was illegal as proper procedure was not adopted and the where relies on , to submit that an order passed by an authority which has jurisdiction over the matter but has assumed it otherwise, then in the mode prescribed by law is not a nullity and only at the department could not prove that reasons were recorded t was having jurisdiction and, therefore, the order of assessment cannot be declared as a nullity. It was further the learned Senior Counsel that the demand raised on 31.10.1964, was revived on 23.07.1979. Apart from the , interest upto the date of was also added creating a total demand of on 14.12.1979, a recovery certificate under Section 222(1) of RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 It has been submitted that the petitioner’s contention of the demand being fictitious and sale of the prop correct and submits that there is no occasion to declare the proceedings as a nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel has submitted that the law laid down in Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. UOI AIR 1988 SC 1777 have no application to the facts of the present case further submitted that the Act, 1961 Section 224 (3) of the or cancelled any recovery certificate. It is also applicable when a correction is made under Section 224 (2) i.e. the AO shall have the power to withdraw any certificate or correct any clerical or arithm by sending an intimation to the TRO. In the present case, neither there was any occasion for the AO to withdraw or cancel the recovery certificate. Also there was no reason to correct any kind of clerical or arithmeti Section 225 (4) is also not applicable as after the issuance of recovery certificate, any outstand proceedings under the Act and those proceedings have become final and conclusive before the date of auction sale made on 15.11.1985 and confirmed on 18.12.1985, invokeable in the present case. It is submitted that as on the date of confirmation of auction of sale, there was a demand due of Rs.11,98,848/ nothing wrong in the auction when an amount of Rs.11,98,848/ 1989 (O&M) [12]-16680-2005 It has been submitted that the petitioner’s contention of the demand being fictitious and sale of the property being a nullity correct and submits that there is no occasion to declare the proceedings as a nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel has submitted that the law laid rinder Nath Kapoor vs. UOI AIR 1988 SC 1777 have no application to the facts of the present case further submitted that the reliance on Section 224 ( the Act, 1961 would have no application to the facts of the present case as Section 224 (3) of the Act, 1961, is applicable, when the AO has withdrawn or cancelled any recovery certificate. It is also applicable when a correction is made under Section 224 (2) i.e. the AO shall have the power to withdraw any certificate or correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the said certificate by sending an intimation to the TRO. In the present case, neither there was any occasion for the AO to withdraw or cancel the recovery certificate. Also there was no reason to correct any kind of clerical or arithmeti Section 225 (4) is also not applicable as after the issuance of recovery certificate, any outstanding demand was reduced in appeal or other proceedings under the Act and those proceedings have become final and conclusive before the date of auction sale made on 15.11.1985 and confirmed .1985, therefore, Sections 224 (3), 22 nvokeable in the present case. It is submitted that as on the date of confirmation of auction of sale, there was a demand due of Rs.11,98,848/ nothing wrong in the auction when an amount of Rs.11,98,848/ 2005 (O&M) It has been submitted that the petitioner’s contention of the erty being a nullity, is not legally correct and submits that there is no occasion to declare the proceedings as a nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel has submitted that the law laid rinder Nath Kapoor vs. UOI AIR 1988 SC 1777, would therefore have no application to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel has n 224 (2), 224 (3) and 225 (4) of would have no application to the facts of the present case as Act, 1961, is applicable, when the AO has withdrawn or cancelled any recovery certificate. It is also applicable when a correction is made under Section 224 (2) i.e. the AO shall have the power to withdraw any etical mistake in the said certificate by sending an intimation to the TRO. In the present case, neither there was any occasion for the AO to withdraw or cancel the recovery certificate. Also there was no reason to correct any kind of clerical or arithmetical mistake. Section 225 (4) is also not applicable as after the issuance of recovery demand was reduced in appeal or other proceedings under the Act and those proceedings have become final and conclusive before the date of auction sale made on 15.11.1985 and confirmed therefore, Sections 224 (3), 225(2) or 225(3) were not It is submitted that as on the date of confirmation of auction of sale, there was a demand due of Rs.11,98,848/- and submits that there was nothing wrong in the auction when an amount of Rs.11,98,848/- was due It has been submitted that the petitioner’s contention of the is not legally correct and submits that there is no occasion to declare the proceedings as a nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel has submitted that the law laid fore Learned counsel has ) and 225 (4) of would have no application to the facts of the present case as Act, 1961, is applicable, when the AO has withdrawn or cancelled any recovery certificate. It is also applicable when a correction is made under Section 224 (2) i.e. the AO shall have the power to withdraw any etical mistake in the said certificate by sending an intimation to the TRO. In the present case, neither there was any occasion for the AO to withdraw or cancel the recovery certificate. Also cal mistake. Section 225 (4) is also not applicable as after the issuance of recovery demand was reduced in appeal or other proceedings under the Act and those proceedings have become final and conclusive before the date of auction sale made on 15.11.1985 and confirmed 5(2) or 225(3) were not It is submitted that as on the date of confirmation of auction of and submits that there was was due RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 from the defaulter/petitioner. It is further submitted that the order waiving interest under Section 220 (2A) was passed after the auction taken place on 31.07.1987 while the auction had taken place and confirmed on 15.11.1985 and 18.12.1985 respectively. 220 (2A) of the Act, 1961, before that the powers were with the Board and the power was exercised with discretion. a valid demand due. He further submits that in terms of Section 265 of the Act, even if a reference has been made to the High Court, tax would be payable in terms of the assessment order. Rule 5 of the Second Schedule states that the interest on the amount of of the Act, 1961, would not apply and the sale cannot Learned counsel has further relied 1986 SC 421, to submit that if a reference is pending before the High Court, no stay can be granted by the High Court and ITAT can grant stay, but no such application was ever made by the petitioner B.C. Dalal vs. Custodian and others there is no stay of recovery and the demand is outstanding, the sale of attached property cannot be staye perfectly legal in this case. 12. Learned counsel further submits bona fide purchaser and the objections raised by the petitioner had been rejected, and therefore, auction of sale cannot be set aside. He submits that 1989 (O&M) [13]-16680-2005 aulter/petitioner. It is further submitted that the order waiving interest under Section 220 (2A) was passed after the auction taken place on while the auction had taken place and confirmed on 15.11.1985 .1985 respectively. The power of waiver of interest under Section of the Act, 1961, was given to the Commissioner on 01.04.1987 before that the powers were with the Board and the power was exercised with discretion. Thus, on the date of confirmation of sale, there was lid demand due. He further submits that in terms of Section 265 of the Act, even if a reference has been made to the High Court, tax would be payable in terms of the assessment order. Rule 5 of the Second Schedule states that the interest on the amount of tax is payable under Section 220 (2) of the Act, 1961, and therefore, he submits that the doctrine of would not apply and the sale cannot be termed Learned counsel has further relied , to submit that if a reference is pending before the High Court, no stay can be granted by the High Court and ITAT can grant stay, but no such application was ever made by the petitioner B.C. Dalal vs. Custodian and others (2006) 2 SCC 411 there is no stay of recovery and the demand is outstanding, the sale of attached property cannot be stayed. He further submits that the auction was perfectly legal in this case. Learned counsel further submits bona fide purchaser and the objections raised by the petitioner had been , and therefore, auction of sale cannot be set aside. He submits that 2005 (O&M) aulter/petitioner. It is further submitted that the order waiving interest under Section 220 (2A) was passed after the auction taken place on while the auction had taken place and confirmed on 15.11.1985 waiver of interest under Section was given to the Commissioner on 01.04.1987 before that the powers were with the Board and the power was to be Thus, on the date of confirmation of sale, there was lid demand due. He further submits that in terms of Section 265 of the Act, even if a reference has been made to the High Court, tax would be payable in terms of the assessment order. Rule 5 of the Second Schedule tax is payable under Section 220 (2) therefore, he submits that the doctrine of lis pendens be termed as illegal in any manner. Learned counsel has further relied on CIT vs. Bansi Dhar AIR , to submit that if a reference is pending before the High Court, no stay can be granted by the High Court and ITAT can grant stay, but no such application was ever made by the petitioner. Learned counsel relies on (2006) 2 SCC 411, to submit that once there is no stay of recovery and the demand is outstanding, the sale of d. He further submits that the auction was Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.7 was a bona fide purchaser and the objections raised by the petitioner had been , and therefore, auction of sale cannot be set aside. He submits that aulter/petitioner. It is further submitted that the order waiving interest under Section 220 (2A) was passed after the auction taken place on while the auction had taken place and confirmed on 15.11.1985 waiver of interest under Section was given to the Commissioner on 01.04.1987 to be Thus, on the date of confirmation of sale, there was lid demand due. He further submits that in terms of Section 265 of the Act, even if a reference has been made to the High Court, tax would be payable in terms of the assessment order. Rule 5 of the Second Schedule tax is payable under Section 220 (2) lis pendens AIR , to submit that if a reference is pending before the High Court, no stay can be granted by the High Court and ITAT can grant stay, but no . Learned counsel relies on , to submit that once there is no stay of recovery and the demand is outstanding, the sale of d. He further submits that the auction was that respondent No.7 was a bona fide purchaser and the objections raised by the petitioner had been , and therefore, auction of sale cannot be set aside. He submits that RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 the properties were sold at adequate price. He further submits that there is n similar provisions to Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Second Schedule appended to the Act, 1961, therefore, no question of setting aside of sale or restitution of property would arise, with reference to auction conducted under the Act, 1961 was entitled for refund of the entire amount paid along with statutory interest. 13. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, contends that on the date when the auction was done, amount was due subsequently. He further submits that there was no stay granted by any Court and the interim order was vacated and if any demand was set aside or reduced, the same would have no application to cancel the auction which had already taken (2008) 301 ITR 337 (SC) stranger who is a bona fide purchase of the property in an auction and decree holder purchaser at a court auction. The s protection by the Court because they that is so, the court auction would not auction property the High Court with regard to the property purchased by him in furtherance of a duly published auction. has been effected and a third party interest is created, then the same ought to be protected by the Court. Singh vs. Harendra Singh Rita Sulochana, Law Finder Doc ID #1199182 1989 (O&M) [14]-16680-2005 the properties were sold at adequate price. He further submits that there is n similar provisions to Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Second Schedule appended to the Act, 1961, therefore, no question of setting aside of sale or restitution of property would arise, with reference to auction conducted under the Act, 1961. He further submits that at best the petitioner was entitled for refund of the entire amount paid along with statutory interest. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, contends that on the date when the auction was done, amount was due subsequently. He further submits that there was no stay granted by any Court and the interim order was vacated and if any demand was set aside or reduced, the same would have no application to cancel the auction which had already taken place. He relies on Janatha Textiles vs. Tax Recovery Officer (2008) 301 ITR 337 (SC), to submit that there is a distinction between a who is a bona fide purchase of the property in an auction and decree holder purchaser at a court auction. The strangers to the decree are afforded protection by the Court because they are not connected to the decree and if the court auction would not fetch auction property. He further submits that no interference ought to urt with regard to the property purchased by him in furtherance of a duly published auction. Learned counsel further submits that once a sale has been effected and a third party interest is created, then the same ought to d by the Court. Learned counsel has Singh vs. Harendra Singh 2015 (5) SCC 574 Rita Sulochana, Law Finder Doc ID #1199182 2005 (O&M) the properties were sold at adequate price. He further submits that there is no similar provisions to Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Second Schedule appended to the Act, 1961, therefore, no question of setting aside of sale or restitution of property would arise, with reference to auction He further submits that at best the petitioner was entitled for refund of the entire amount paid along with statutory interest. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, contends that on the date when the auction was done, amount was due although interest was reduced subsequently. He further submits that there was no stay granted by any Court and the interim order was vacated and if any demand was set aside or reduced, the same would have no application to cancel the auction which had Janatha Textiles vs. Tax Recovery Officer , to submit that there is a distinction between a who is a bona fide purchase of the property in an auction and decree- trangers to the decree are afforded are not connected to the decree and if fetch a best market fair price of the e further submits that no interference ought to be made by urt with regard to the property purchased by him in furtherance Learned counsel further submits that once a sale has been effected and a third party interest is created, then the same ought to Learned counsel has relied on Sadashiv Prasad 2015 (5) SCC 574, Samiro Alcantra Vaz vs. Ana Rita Sulochana, Law Finder Doc ID #1199182, Janak Raj vs. Gurdial Singh o similar provisions to Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Second Schedule appended to the Act, 1961, therefore, no question of setting aside of sale or restitution of property would arise, with reference to auction He further submits that at best the petitioner was entitled for refund of the entire amount paid along with statutory interest. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, contends that on the date interest was reduced subsequently. He further submits that there was no stay granted by any Court and the interim order was vacated and if any demand was set aside or reduced, the same would have no application to cancel the auction which had Janatha Textiles vs. Tax Recovery Officer , to submit that there is a distinction between a - trangers to the decree are afforded are not connected to the decree and if best market fair price of the be made by urt with regard to the property purchased by him in furtherance Learned counsel further submits that once a sale has been effected and a third party interest is created, then the same ought to Sadashiv Prasad Alcantra Vaz vs. Ana Janak Raj vs. Gurdial Singh RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 AIR 1967 SC 608 989, Nanhelal vs. Umrao Singh AIR 1931 PC 33 14. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, appearing for the auction notice had been issued on 16.10.1985 and the auction was 31.10.1985 and 15.11.1985, relating to the properties situated at Link Road and Kwality Restaurant, Lawarance Road, Amritsar, respectively. There was no stay against a Kumar Singh vs. State of Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. M/s Krishan Sales (P) Ltd. AIR 1994 SC 1239, to submit that mere filing of an appeal would not operate as stay and as there was no stay in the petition filed by the assessee, there department has rightly auctioned the properties. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989 and application filed by the assessee to set aside the sale of the immovable property based on the orders passed by the High Court said to be in terms of Section 60 (1A) of the Act, 1961, as no payment was made of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale. Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 61 of the Act, 1961, no sale would be set aside on such grounds unless the TRO satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of non service or irregularity and that the application made by the defaulter shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in execution of the order was to be paid in full, however, the further submits that the Delhi High C 1989 (O&M) [15]-16680-2005 AIR 1967 SC 608, Sardar Govindrao Mahadik vs. Devi Nanhelal vs. Umrao Singh AIR 1931 PC 33 Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, appearing for the auction notice had been issued on 16.10.1985 and the auction was 31.10.1985 and 15.11.1985, relating to the properties situated at Link Road and Kwality Restaurant, Lawarance Road, Amritsar, respectively. There was no stay against auction of properties by the High Court. She relies on Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar and othes 2023 Live Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. M/s Krishan Sales (P) Ltd. AIR 1994 SC to submit that mere filing of an appeal would not operate as stay and as there was no stay in the petition filed by the assessee, there department has rightly auctioned the properties. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989 and application filed by the assessee to set aside the sale of the immovable property based on the orders passed by the High Court in terms of Section 60 (1A) of the Act, 1961, as no payment was made of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale. Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 61 of the Act, 1961, no sale would be set aside on such grounds unless the TRO satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of non service or irregularity and that the application made by the defaulter shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in execution of the certificate. Thus, the amount specified in the proclamation order was to be paid in full, however, the petitioner further submits that the Delhi High Court order was passed on 2005 (O&M) Sardar Govindrao Mahadik vs. Devi Sahi AIR 1982 SC Nanhelal vs. Umrao Singh AIR 1931 PC 33. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, appearing for the revenue submits that the auction notice had been issued on 16.10.1985 and the auction was released on 31.10.1985 and 15.11.1985, relating to the properties situated at Link Road and Kwality Restaurant, Lawarance Road, Amritsar, respectively. There was ction of properties by the High Court. She relies on Sanjiv Bihar and othes 2023 Live Law (SC) 63 and Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. M/s Krishan Sales (P) Ltd. AIR 1994 SC to submit that mere filing of an appeal would not operate as stay and as there was no stay in the petition filed by the assessee, therefore, the department has rightly auctioned the properties. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989 and application filed by the assessee to set aside the sale of the immovable property based on the orders passed by the High Court, cannot be in terms of Section 60 (1A) of the Act, 1961, as no payment was made of the amount specified in the proclamation of sale. Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 61 of the Act, 1961, no sale would be set aside on such grounds unless the TRO is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of non- service or irregularity and that the application made by the defaulter shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in certificate. Thus, the amount specified in the proclamation petitioner never paid the same. She urt order was passed on technical Sahi AIR 1982 SC submits that the on 31.10.1985 and 15.11.1985, relating to the properties situated at Link Road and Kwality Restaurant, Lawarance Road, Amritsar, respectively. There was Sanjiv and Collector of Customs, Bombay vs. M/s Krishan Sales (P) Ltd. AIR 1994 SC to submit that mere filing of an appeal would not operate as stay and as fore, the department has rightly auctioned the properties. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989 and application filed by the assessee to set aside the sale of the cannot be in terms of Section 60 (1A) of the Act, 1961, as no payment was Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 61 of the is - service or irregularity and that the application made by the defaulter shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in certificate. Thus, the amount specified in the proclamation never paid the same. She technical RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 grounds and not on merits and auction conducted by the department. She further submits that as per Section 224 of the Act, 1961, a recovery certificate cannot be altered or amended by the TRO and the contentions of the petitioner having p sought to be recovered therefore, it is her submission that the auction does not call for any interference. Learned counsel has further submitted not maintainable in view of Rule 11(6) of the Rules is under the civil proceedings and cannot claim the same in a writ jurisdiction. 15. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.12 has argued at length supporting th no right is created in favour of the assessee for restitution of the properties as order passed by the Delhi High C facts relating to auction. The Delhi High Court while deciding reference had considered all aspects and the subsequent order passed by the Delhi High Court property which was purchased in public auction. He submits that there has been material cha was purchased in auction in the year 1985/1986. 16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission made by counsel for the parties. 17. While a plethora of judgments have been c counsel, which we have gone through at length, but we do not propose to 1989 (O&M) [16]-16680-2005 grounds and not on merits and therefore, there is no ground to set aside the auction conducted by the department. She further submits that as per Section 224 of the Act, 1961, a recovery certificate cannot be altered or amended by the TRO and the contentions of the petitioner having p recovered, would have no effect on the recovery certificate, and therefore, it is her submission that the auction does not call for any interference. Learned counsel has further submitted intainable in view of Rule 11(6) of the Rules is under the civil proceedings and cannot claim the same in a writ Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent has argued at length supporting the auction purchaser and submits that no right is created in favour of the assessee for restitution of the properties as order passed by the Delhi High Court does not take into consideration the facts relating to auction. The Delhi High Court while deciding reference had considered all aspects and the subsequent order passed by the Delhi High Court would not defeat the bona fide purchaser’s right to hold the property which was purchased in public auction. He submits that there has been material changes in the property and the nature thereto after the same was purchased in auction in the year 1985/1986. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission made by counsel for the parties. While a plethora of judgments have been c counsel, which we have gone through at length, but we do not propose to 2005 (O&M) therefore, there is no ground to set aside the auction conducted by the department. She further submits that as per Section 224 of the Act, 1961, a recovery certificate cannot be altered or amended by the TRO and the contentions of the petitioner having paid part of the amount , would have no effect on the recovery certificate, and therefore, it is her submission that the auction does not call for any interference. Learned counsel has further submitted that the writ petition is intainable in view of Rule 11(6) of the Rules and the remedy available is under the civil proceedings and cannot claim the same in a writ Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent e auction purchaser and submits that no right is created in favour of the assessee for restitution of the properties as urt does not take into consideration the facts relating to auction. The Delhi High Court while deciding the first reference had considered all aspects and the subsequent order passed by the would not defeat the bona fide purchaser’s right to hold the property which was purchased in public auction. He submits that there has nges in the property and the nature thereto after the same was purchased in auction in the year 1985/1986. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions While a plethora of judgments have been cited at bar by all the counsel, which we have gone through at length, but we do not propose to therefore, there is no ground to set aside the auction conducted by the department. She further submits that as per Section 224 of the Act, 1961, a recovery certificate cannot be altered or amended by aid part of the amount , would have no effect on the recovery certificate, and therefore, it is her submission that the auction does not call for any that the writ petition is and the remedy available is under the civil proceedings and cannot claim the same in a writ Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent e auction purchaser and submits that no right is created in favour of the assessee for restitution of the properties as urt does not take into consideration the the first reference had considered all aspects and the subsequent order passed by the would not defeat the bona fide purchaser’s right to hold the property which was purchased in public auction. He submits that there has nges in the property and the nature thereto after the same s ited at bar by all the counsel, which we have gone through at length, but we do not propose to RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 make this judgment more lengthy as then propose to give our findings on the issues raised by the petitioner and respondents on based on the law which we find to be applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. Firstly we would learned senior counsel for respondent No.7. No.7 is that the present petition filed by HUF would not be maintainable because the objection petitions were objection petitions also contended that the properties do not belong to the HUF and could not therefore be sold in auction and relying on said contention, the auction purchaser of petitioner – auction purchaser/respondent No.7 who has himself purchased the property in auction relating to a demand raised by the revenue against the resulting in the auction specifically mentions all the list of properties of M/s Gok Chand-HUF to the the property was not that of HUF. recognized the property to be that of HUF, it would be HUF alone and none else who can challenge such an a counsel in Bokaro and Rambur’s applicable to the 1989 (O&M) [17]-16680-2005 make this judgment more lengthy as then what it has already been and would propose to give our findings on the issues raised by the petitioner and respondents on the facts which have already been noticed hereinabove and based on the law which we find to be applicable to the facts of the present Firstly we would deal with the maintainability issue raised by learned senior counsel for respondent No.7. No.7 is that the present petition filed by HUF would not be maintainable because the objection petitions were filed by the coparceners who had in their objection petitions also contended that the properties do not belong to the HUF and could not therefore be sold in auction and relying on said contention, the auction purchaser/respondent No.7 raises point of –HUF. We are unable to accept such a contention auction purchaser/respondent No.7 who has himself purchased the property in auction relating to a demand raised by the revenue against the resulting in the auction. A look at the certificate of sale reveals that the same specifically mentions all the list of properties of M/s Gok HUF to the purchaser, he, therefore, cannot turn around and argue that the property was not that of HUF. Even otherwise recognized the property to be that of HUF, it would be HUF alone and none can challenge such an auction. The law cited by learned Bokaro and Rambur’s case (supra), is therefore found to be not to the facts of the present case. 2005 (O&M) what it has already been and would propose to give our findings on the issues raised by the petitioner and the facts which have already been noticed hereinabove and based on the law which we find to be applicable to the facts of the present the maintainability issue raised by learned senior counsel for respondent No.7. The argument of respondent No.7 is that the present petition filed by HUF would not be maintainable by the coparceners who had in their objection petitions also contended that the properties do not belong to the HUF and could not therefore be sold in auction and relying on said respondent No.7 raises point of locus standi HUF. We are unable to accept such a contention raised by the auction purchaser/respondent No.7 who has himself purchased the property in auction relating to a demand raised by the revenue against the HUF t the certificate of sale reveals that the same specifically mentions all the list of properties of M/s Gokal Chand Rattan , he, therefore, cannot turn around and argue that Even otherwise, when the revenue itself recognized the property to be that of HUF, it would be HUF alone and none ction. The law cited by learned senior case (supra), is therefore found to be not what it has already been and would propose to give our findings on the issues raised by the petitioner and the facts which have already been noticed hereinabove and based on the law which we find to be applicable to the facts of the present the maintainability issue raised by he argument of respondent No.7 is that the present petition filed by HUF would not be maintainable by the coparceners who had in their objection petitions also contended that the properties do not belong to the HUF and could not therefore be sold in auction and relying on said di by the auction purchaser/respondent No.7 who has himself purchased the property HUF t the certificate of sale reveals that the same l Chand Rattan , he, therefore, cannot turn around and argue that he revenue itself recognized the property to be that of HUF, it would be HUF alone and none senior case (supra), is therefore found to be not RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 19. Thus, we hold that the petitioner ha challenge the auction by way of present writ petition and the preliminary objection is accordingly rejected. 20. On merits, before we analyze on the would be apposite to quote relevant Sections and Rules of the Act: “ (2) Notwithstanding the issue of a certificate to a Tax Recovery Officer, the Income correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the certificate by sending an intimation to the Tax Recovery Officer. (3) The Income Officer any orders withdrawing or cancelling a ce rection made by him under sub amendment made under sub Section 225 (2), (3) (4) of the Act, 1961 (2) Income any ta such certificate. (3) certificate for recovery has been issued has been modified in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, a demand is reduced but the order is the subject proceeding under this Act, the Income recovery of such part of the amount of the certificate as pertains to the said redu proceeding remains pending. (4) subsequently the amount of the outstanding demand is reduced as a result of an appeal or other proceeding under this Act, the Income Officer shall, when the order which was the subject 1989 (O&M) [18]-16680-2005 Thus, we hold that the petitioner ha challenge the auction by way of present writ petition and the preliminary objection is accordingly rejected. On merits, before we analyze on the would be apposite to quote relevant Sections and Rules of the Act: “Section 224 (2) and (3) of the Act, 1961 (2) Notwithstanding the issue of a certificate to a Tax Recovery Officer, the Income-tax Officer shall have power t correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the certificate by sending an intimation to the Tax Recovery Officer. (3) The Income-tax Officer shall intimate to the Tax Recovery Officer any orders withdrawing or cancelling a ce rection made by him under sub-section ( amendment made under sub-section (4) of Section 225 (2), (3) (4) of the Act, 1961 (2) Where a certificate for the recovery of tax has been issued, the Income-tax Officer shall keep the Tax Recovery Officer informed of any tax paid or time granted for payment, subsequent to the issue of such certificate. (3) Where the order giving rise to a demand of tax for which a certificate for recovery has been issued has been modified in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, a demand is reduced but the order is the subject proceeding under this Act, the Income recovery of such part of the amount of the certificate as pertains to the said reduction for the period for which the appeal or other proceeding remains pending. (4) Where a certificate for the recovery of tax has been issued and subsequently the amount of the outstanding demand is reduced as a result of an appeal or other proceeding under this Act, the Income Officer shall, when the order which was the subject 2005 (O&M) Thus, we hold that the petitioner had a legal right available to challenge the auction by way of present writ petition and the preliminary On merits, before we analyze on the aforementioned facts, it would be apposite to quote relevant Sections and Rules of the Act:- Section 224 (2) and (3) of the Act, 1961. (2) Notwithstanding the issue of a certificate to a Tax Recovery tax Officer shall have power to withdraw or correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the certificate by sending an intimation to the Tax Recovery Officer. tax Officer shall intimate to the Tax Recovery Officer any orders withdrawing or cancelling a certificate or any cor- section (2) of this section or any section (4) of Section-225. Section 225 (2), (3) (4) of the Act, 1961. Where a certificate for the recovery of tax has been issued, the tax Officer shall keep the Tax Recovery Officer informed of x paid or time granted for payment, subsequent to the issue of Where the order giving rise to a demand of tax for which a certificate for recovery has been issued has been modified in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, and, as a consequence thereof, the demand is reduced but the order is the subject-matter of further proceeding under this Act, the Income-tax Officer shall stay the recovery of such part of the amount of the certificate as pertains to ction for the period for which the appeal or other Where a certificate for the recovery of tax has been issued and subsequently the amount of the outstanding demand is reduced as a result of an appeal or other proceeding under this Act, the Income-tax Officer shall, when the order which was the subject-matter of such a legal right available to challenge the auction by way of present writ petition and the preliminary aforementioned facts, it (2) Notwithstanding the issue of a certificate to a Tax Recovery o withdraw or correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the certificate by tax Officer shall intimate to the Tax Recovery r- ) of this section or any Where a certificate for the recovery of tax has been issued, the tax Officer shall keep the Tax Recovery Officer informed of x paid or time granted for payment, subsequent to the issue of Where the order giving rise to a demand of tax for which a certificate for recovery has been issued has been modified in appeal nd, as a consequence thereof, the matter of further tax Officer shall stay the recovery of such part of the amount of the certificate as pertains to ction for the period for which the appeal or other Where a certificate for the recovery of tax has been issued and subsequently the amount of the outstanding demand is reduced as a tax matter of such RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 appeal or other proceeding has become final and conclusive, amend the certificate or withdraw it, as the case may be. Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 61. Application to set aside sale of immovable property on non Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a certificate, [such Income [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or [Principal Commissioner or person whose interests are affected by the sale, may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the sale of the immovable property on the gr arrears as required by this Schedule or on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale: Provided that: (a) no sale shall be set aside on any such ground unless the Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the non (b) an application made by a defaulter under this rule shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount rec him in the execution of the certificate.” 21. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, has supported the order passed by the TRO rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner’s representative relating to conducting of auction of b properties and has submitted that the provisions of Section 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961 and Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, not be applicable and the TRO had no certificate issued under 1989 (O&M) [19]-16680-2005 appeal or other proceeding has become final and conclusive, amend the certificate or withdraw it, as the case may be. Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 61. Application to set aside sale of immovable property on non-service of notice or irregularity: Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a certificate, [such Income-tax Officer as may be authorised by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] in this behalf], the defaulter, or any person whose interests are affected by the sale, may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the sale of the immovable property on the ground that notice was not served on the defaulter to pay the arrears as required by this Schedule or on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale: Provided that:- (a) no sale shall be set aside on any such ground unless the Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the non (b) an application made by a defaulter under this rule shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount rec him in the execution of the certificate.” Learned senior counsel Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, has supported the order passed by the TRO rejecting the objections raised by the s representative relating to conducting of auction of b and has submitted that the provisions of Section 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961 and Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, not be applicable and the TRO had no valid authority to modify the recovery certificate issued under Section 222(1) of the Act, 1961. 2005 (O&M) appeal or other proceeding has become final and conclusive, amend the certificate or withdraw it, as the case may be. Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 61. Application to set aside sale of immovable property on ground of service of notice or irregularity:- Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a tax Officer as may be authorised by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or [Principal Commissioner] in this behalf], the defaulter, or any person whose interests are affected by the sale, may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the sale of the immovable property on ound that notice was not served on the defaulter to pay the arrears as required by this Schedule or on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale: (a) no sale shall be set aside on any such ground unless the Tax Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the non-service or irregularity; and (b) an application made by a defaulter under this rule shall be disallowed unless the applicant deposits the amount recoverable from him in the execution of the certificate.” Learned senior counsel Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, has supported the order passed by the TRO rejecting the objections raised by the s representative relating to conducting of auction of both the and has submitted that the provisions of Section 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961 and Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961, would authority to modify the recovery Section 222(1) of the Act, 1961. appeal or other proceeding has become final and conclusive, amend ground of Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a tax Officer as may be authorised by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or [Principal Commissioner] in this behalf], the defaulter, or any person whose interests are affected by the sale, may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, apply to the Tax Recovery Officer to set aside the sale of the immovable property on ound that notice was not served on the defaulter to pay the arrears as required by this Schedule or on the ground of a material Tax Recovery Officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained (b) an application made by a defaulter under this rule shall be overable from Learned senior counsel Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, has supported the order passed by the TRO rejecting the objections raised by the oth the and has submitted that the provisions of Section 224 and 225 of would authority to modify the recovery RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 22. However, we find that the ex parte order passed by the ITAT dated 23.07.1979, was set aside by the ITAT order, any action based on the order dated 23.07.1979 or certificate of recovery issued on the said basis dated 14.12.1979, would be thus initio. The subsequent order passed by the fresh liability on the assessee issued after passing of the order by the thereafter that recovery notice and recovery certificate could be issued in terms of Section 222 (1) of the Act, 1961 23. We are in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that once a sum of Rs.2,45,000/ certificate dated 14.12.1979, the recovery certificate was required to be revised by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 224( However, inaction on the part of the Assessing Officer wou to the TRO to reject the objections. On complete reading of the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961, which lay down the procedure for recovery, we do not agree with the contentions of the respondents that the TRO is not empowered to take decision relating to the recovery certificate. In fact, he has a power even to cancel the recovery certificate on being informed that the payment has been made by the concerned defaulter. 24. We also find that there has been a complete provisions of Sections 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961. I after a certificate for recovery has been issued, it shall be binding on the TRO to amend the certificate or cancel it as the case may be, where subsequently 1989 (O&M) [20]-16680-2005 However, we find that the ex parte order passed by the ITAT dated 23.07.1979, was set aside by the ITAT any action based on the order dated 23.07.1979 or certificate of issued on the said basis dated 14.12.1979, would be thus The subsequent order passed by the ITAT dated 11.04.198 liability on the assessee. Hence, a demand notice was required to be issued after passing of the order by the ITAT dated 11.04.198 thereafter that recovery notice and recovery certificate could be issued in terms of Section 222 (1) of the Act, 1961. We are in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that once a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- had been deposited after the issuance of recovery certificate dated 14.12.1979, the recovery certificate was required to be revised by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 224( action on the part of the Assessing Officer wou to the TRO to reject the objections. On complete reading of the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961, which lay down the procedure for recovery, we do not agree with the contentions of the respondents that the mpowered to take decision relating to the recovery certificate. In fact, he has a power even to cancel the recovery certificate on being informed that the payment has been made by the concerned defaulter. We also find that there has been a complete provisions of Sections 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961. I after a certificate for recovery has been issued, it shall be binding on the TRO to amend the certificate or cancel it as the case may be, where subsequently 2005 (O&M) However, we find that the ex parte order passed by the ITAT dated 23.07.1979, was set aside by the ITAT. When it recalled the ex parte any action based on the order dated 23.07.1979 or certificate of issued on the said basis dated 14.12.1979, would be thus void ab ITAT dated 11.04.1983 created a ence, a demand notice was required to be ITAT dated 11.04.1983 and it is only thereafter that recovery notice and recovery certificate could be issued in We are in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that once been deposited after the issuance of recovery certificate dated 14.12.1979, the recovery certificate was required to be revised by the Assessing Officer in terms of section 224(3) of the Act, 1961. action on the part of the Assessing Officer would not give a right to the TRO to reject the objections. On complete reading of the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961, which lay down the procedure for recovery, we do not agree with the contentions of the respondents that the mpowered to take decision relating to the recovery certificate. In fact, he has a power even to cancel the recovery certificate on being informed that the payment has been made by the concerned defaulter. We also find that there has been a complete go-by to the provisions of Sections 224 and 225 of the Act, 1961. It is apparent that even after a certificate for recovery has been issued, it shall be binding on the TRO to amend the certificate or cancel it as the case may be, where subsequently However, we find that the ex parte order passed by the ITAT hen it recalled the ex parte any action based on the order dated 23.07.1979 or certificate of void ab a ence, a demand notice was required to be and it is only thereafter that recovery notice and recovery certificate could be issued in We are in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that once been deposited after the issuance of recovery certificate dated 14.12.1979, the recovery certificate was required to be . a right to the TRO to reject the objections. On complete reading of the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961, which lay down the procedure for recovery, we do not agree with the contentions of the respondents that the mpowered to take decision relating to the recovery certificate. In fact, he has a power even to cancel the recovery certificate on being informed by to the t is apparent that even after a certificate for recovery has been issued, it shall be binding on the TRO to amend the certificate or cancel it as the case may be, where subsequently RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 the amount of outstanding demand is reduced. When it was informed that part of the amount had already been deposited i.e. Rs.2,45,000/ was required to be reduced from the total demand raised from the certificate of recovery drawn by the TRO under Secti find that the action taken by the TRO of conducting auction based on the original demand due of Rs.11,98,848/ that the notice of demand dated 23.07.1979, the interest 11.04.1983 i.e. when the final adjudication of the so called addition was made. 25. The auction proceedings are very harsh proceedings and it is the last resort and one must be very the property of a defaulter. The auction not only requires to be done with care and caution but it should also be done in a manner and procedure which is laid down in the rules. proceedings o Indian Appeals 372 26. We are in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that once the TRO was informed by the petit withheld the proclamation and further proceedings of auction. More so, as the demand notice and recovery certificate were based on the order of ITAT dated 07.03.1979, which had been set aside by the Delhi High Co because the ITAT again reiterated and held the petitioners liable for the tax, by its subsequent order dated 11.04.1983, it cannot be said that the earlier 1989 (O&M) [21]-16680-2005 unt of outstanding demand is reduced. When it was informed that part of the amount had already been deposited i.e. Rs.2,45,000/ was required to be reduced from the total demand raised from the certificate of recovery drawn by the TRO under Section 220(2) of the Act, 1961. We find that the action taken by the TRO of conducting auction based on the original demand due of Rs.11,98,848/-, was wholly unjustified. that the notice of demand dated 23.07.1979, was the interest was also illegally calculated from 30.10.1964 instead of i.e. when the final adjudication of the so called addition was The auction proceedings are very harsh proceedings and it is the last resort and one must be very-very careful and cautious the property of a defaulter. The auction not only requires to be done with care and caution but it should also be done in a manner and procedure which is laid down in the rules. Any violation of the procedure would vitiate the entire of auction as has been held in Nazir Ahmad vs King Emperor 63 Indian Appeals 372. We are in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that once the TRO was informed by the petitioner on raising objections, it should have withheld the proclamation and further proceedings of auction. More so, as the demand notice and recovery certificate were based on the order of ITAT dated 07.03.1979, which had been set aside by the Delhi High Co because the ITAT again reiterated and held the petitioners liable for the tax, by its subsequent order dated 11.04.1983, it cannot be said that the earlier 2005 (O&M) unt of outstanding demand is reduced. When it was informed that part of the amount had already been deposited i.e. Rs.2,45,000/-, the same was required to be reduced from the total demand raised from the certificate on 220(2) of the Act, 1961. We find that the action taken by the TRO of conducting auction based on the , was wholly unjustified. We also find was required to be corrected and also illegally calculated from 30.10.1964 instead of i.e. when the final adjudication of the so called addition was The auction proceedings are very harsh proceedings and it is the careful and cautious before auctioning the property of a defaulter. The auction not only requires to be done with care and caution but it should also be done in a manner and procedure which is Any violation of the procedure would vitiate the entire Nazir Ahmad vs King Emperor 63 We are in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that once ioner on raising objections, it should have withheld the proclamation and further proceedings of auction. More so, as the demand notice and recovery certificate were based on the order of ITAT dated 07.03.1979, which had been set aside by the Delhi High Court, merely because the ITAT again reiterated and held the petitioners liable for the tax, by its subsequent order dated 11.04.1983, it cannot be said that the earlier unt of outstanding demand is reduced. When it was informed that , the same was required to be reduced from the total demand raised from the certificate on 220(2) of the Act, 1961. We find that the action taken by the TRO of conducting auction based on the We also find d also illegally calculated from 30.10.1964 instead of i.e. when the final adjudication of the so called addition was The auction proceedings are very harsh proceedings and it is the before auctioning the property of a defaulter. The auction not only requires to be done with care and caution but it should also be done in a manner and procedure which is Any violation of the procedure would vitiate the entire Nazir Ahmad vs King Emperor 63 We are in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that once ioner on raising objections, it should have withheld the proclamation and further proceedings of auction. More so, as the demand notice and recovery certificate were based on the order of ITAT urt, merely because the ITAT again reiterated and held the petitioners liable for the tax, by its subsequent order dated 11.04.1983, it cannot be said that the earlier RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 demand notice and recovery certificate stood revived. A fresh demand notice was required required to be deducted before issuing a recovery certificate. 27. We find that the TRO has shown unnecessary haste in conducting the auction while having full knowledge that the order passed by the ITAT is also a subject matter of reference before the Delhi High Court and the reference had been admitted. 28. This Court notices that at the interim stages in the present petition, directions were issued to the respondents explanation from the concerned TRO and an affidavit had been filed stating the concerned TRO was from Delhi. The provisions of Section 224 which have been discussed in the preceding paras reflect that the ITO and the TRO are required jointly to be responsible fo relation to the recovery orders. 29. We also find that even the appellate authority failed to perform its duty once it was brought to its notice of the tax aspect having been made, the original demand of Rs.11,98,848/ properties could not have been auctioned. The orders passed by the TRO are not sustainable in law. 30. The procedure laid down has to be followed and there can be no departure from such a procedure and if the Courts r that departure has been performed in a particular manner, such proceedings void ab initio 1989 (O&M) [22]-16680-2005 demand notice and recovery certificate stood revived. A fresh demand notice to be issued and if any amount is deposited, the same was required to be deducted before issuing a recovery certificate. We find that the TRO has shown unnecessary haste in conducting the auction while having full knowledge that the order passed by the ITAT is also a subject matter of reference before the Delhi High Court and the reference had been admitted. This Court notices that at the interim stages in the present petition, directions were issued to the respondents ation from the concerned TRO and an affidavit had been filed stating the concerned TRO was from Delhi. The provisions of Section 224 which have been discussed in the preceding paras reflect that the ITO and the TRO are required jointly to be responsible for any action which they may take in relation to the recovery orders. We also find that even the appellate authority failed to perform its duty once it was brought to its notice of the tax aspect having been made, the original demand of Rs.11,98,848/- stood considerably reduced and the properties could not have been auctioned. The orders passed by the TRO are not sustainable in law. The procedure laid down has to be followed and there can be no departure from such a procedure and if the Courts r that departure has been made in performing a work, which is prescribed to be performed in a particular manner, such proceedings ab initio. They would not create any right 2005 (O&M) demand notice and recovery certificate stood revived. A fresh demand notice to be issued and if any amount is deposited, the same was required to be deducted before issuing a recovery certificate. We find that the TRO has shown unnecessary haste in conducting the auction while having full knowledge that the order passed by the ITAT is also a subject matter of reference before the Delhi High Court This Court notices that at the interim stages in the present petition, directions were issued to the respondents/revenue to get an ation from the concerned TRO and an affidavit had been filed stating the concerned TRO was from Delhi. The provisions of Section 224 which have been discussed in the preceding paras reflect that the ITO and the TRO r any action which they may take in We also find that even the appellate authority failed to perform its duty once it was brought to its notice of the tax aspect having been made, stood considerably reduced and the properties could not have been auctioned. The orders passed by the TRO are The procedure laid down has to be followed and there can be no departure from such a procedure and if the Courts reach to the conclusion in performing a work, which is prescribed to be performed in a particular manner, such proceedings are required to be held not create any right in favour of anyone. The demand notice and recovery certificate stood revived. A fresh demand notice to be issued and if any amount is deposited, the same was We find that the TRO has shown unnecessary haste in conducting the auction while having full knowledge that the order passed by the ITAT is also a subject matter of reference before the Delhi High Court This Court notices that at the interim stages in the present revenue to get an ation from the concerned TRO and an affidavit had been filed stating the concerned TRO was from Delhi. The provisions of Section 224 which have been discussed in the preceding paras reflect that the ITO and the TRO r any action which they may take in We also find that even the appellate authority failed to perform its duty once it was brought to its notice of the tax aspect having been made, stood considerably reduced and the properties could not have been auctioned. The orders passed by the TRO are The procedure laid down has to be followed and there can be no each to the conclusion in performing a work, which is prescribed to be held The RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 action taken without giving price as well as the amount to be recovered reflects that there has been a departure from the rules declared bad in law. The judgment pa Nazir Ahmad well as Hon’ble the Supreme Court 31. We are also not agreed with the contentions of learned counsel for the respondents that the auction purchasers other hand we find that the principle of cases of purchases and auctions and n state that he had no knowledge about the nature of the property and reasons for selling of the property in auction. Such an auction purchaser cannot be said to be ignorant to such facts of the property being in lit discussed in the preceding paras, the rules were admittedly given a by and as has come on record the auction purchasers are also related and, therefore, they cannot said that they are strangers. accede to the submissi auction purchasers ought not be made to suffer, as the entire fulcrum of the auction proceedings have been found to be void consequential proceedings cannot be allowed to be maintain delayed cannot be held to be justice denied if ultimately it has been found that there was no tax person have to be returned back to him and in fact compensation is also required to be paid to such person. 1989 (O&M) [23]-16680-2005 taken without giving appropriate notice price as well as the amount to be recovered reflects that there has been a departure from the rules and such proceedings would, therefore, have to be declared bad in law. The judgment passed by the Privy Council in the case of Ahmad’s case (supra), has been followed consistently by this Court as well as Hon’ble the Supreme Court in catena of judgments. We are also not agreed with the contentions of learned counsel for the respondents that the auction purchasers other hand we find that the principle of ‘buyer beware’ cases of purchases and auctions and no person participating in the auction can state that he had no knowledge about the nature of the property and reasons for selling of the property in auction. Such an auction purchaser cannot be said to be ignorant to such facts of the property being in lit discussed in the preceding paras, the rules were admittedly given a by and as has come on record the auction purchasers are also related and, therefore, they cannot said that they are strangers. accede to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the auction purchasers ought not be made to suffer, as the entire fulcrum of the auction proceedings have been found to be void consequential proceedings cannot be allowed to be maintain delayed cannot be held to be justice denied if ultimately it has been found that there was no tax requirement to be paid, properties sold forcefully of any person have to be returned back to him and in fact compensation is also be paid to such person. 2005 (O&M) notice, without mentioning the base price as well as the amount to be recovered reflects that there has been a uch proceedings would, therefore, have to be ssed by the Privy Council in the case of ’s case (supra), has been followed consistently by this Court as in catena of judgments. We are also not agreed with the contentions of learned counsel for the respondents that the auction purchasers are only the strangers. On the buyer beware’ is applicable in all o person participating in the auction can state that he had no knowledge about the nature of the property and reasons for selling of the property in auction. Such an auction purchaser cannot be said to be ignorant to such facts of the property being in litigation. As discussed in the preceding paras, the rules were admittedly given a by-pass and as has come on record the auction purchasers are also related and, therefore, they cannot said that they are strangers. We, therefore, cannot ons of learned counsel for the respondents that the auction purchasers ought not be made to suffer, as the entire fulcrum of the auction proceedings have been found to be void ab initio, therefore, consequential proceedings cannot be allowed to be maintained law. Justice delayed cannot be held to be justice denied if ultimately it has been found to be paid, properties sold forcefully of any person have to be returned back to him and in fact compensation is also base price as well as the amount to be recovered reflects that there has been a uch proceedings would, therefore, have to be ssed by the Privy Council in the case of ’s case (supra), has been followed consistently by this Court as We are also not agreed with the contentions of learned counsel n the is applicable in all o person participating in the auction can state that he had no knowledge about the nature of the property and reasons for selling of the property in auction. Such an auction purchaser cannot be igation. As pass and as has come on record the auction purchasers are also related and, We, therefore, cannot ons of learned counsel for the respondents that the auction purchasers ought not be made to suffer, as the entire fulcrum of the , therefore, Justice delayed cannot be held to be justice denied if ultimately it has been found to be paid, properties sold forcefully of any person have to be returned back to him and in fact compensation is also RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 32. In others, the IAC (Asstt), Range under Section 226 (3) of the Act, holding one M/s Krihsna Kapoor and Company a defaulter into execution and property of M/s Krishna Kapoor and Company were put to sale by the TRO Raja Properties and the sale was confirmed on 14.03. Nath Kapoor, one of the partners of M/s Krishna and Company, filed an application under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, before the TRO, Jaipur, and he prayed for setting aside the sale of the property, but the same was dismissed. An appeal was filed under Rule 86(1)(c) of the Second Schedule to the Act along with an application seeking stay. Since, no stay was granted, he filed a petition before the High Court, which too was dismissed. Thereupon, SLP was filed before Hon’bl Hon’ble the Supreme Court upon finding that the tax liability of the petitioner therein was reduced and the reduced amount had been paid to the department, held that the sale already held confirmed, of which they have granted stay, would stand vacated. An application was filed for clarification before the TRO and the auction purchaser in whose favour the sale had already confirmed, filed a petition to Hon’ble the Supreme Court for recalling its order dated 12.10.1987 as well as dismi that by virtue of the auction purchaser preferred a petition that as the auction sale had been confirmed, the same could not be set aside. Matter again travelled t 1989 (O&M) [24]-16680-2005 In AIR 1988 SC, Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. Union of India and he IAC (Asstt), Range-II, Amritsar, under Section 226 (3) of the Act, holding one M/s Krihsna Kapoor and Company a defaulter to the extent of Rs.8,57,377/ into execution and property of M/s Krishna Kapoor and Company were put to sale by the TRO-I, Jaipur, on 21.01.1986. The same was purchased by one Raja Properties and the sale was confirmed on 14.03. Nath Kapoor, one of the partners of M/s Krishna and Company, filed an application under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, before the TRO, Jaipur, and he prayed for setting aside the sale of the property, but the missed. An appeal was filed under Rule 86(1)(c) of the Second Schedule to the Act along with an application seeking stay. Since, no stay was granted, he filed a petition before the High Court, which too was dismissed. Thereupon, SLP was filed before Hon’bl Hon’ble the Supreme Court upon finding that the tax liability of the petitioner therein was reduced and the reduced amount had been paid to the department, held that the sale already held confirmed, of which they have granted stay, would stand vacated. An application was filed for clarification before the TRO and the auction purchaser in whose favour the sale had already confirmed, filed a petition to Hon’ble the Supreme Court for recalling its order dated 12.10.1987 as well as dismissal of the SLP. The Court reiterated that by virtue of their order, the sale was to be auction purchaser preferred a petition that as the auction sale had been confirmed, the same could not be set aside. Matter again travelled t 2005 (O&M) Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. Union of India and II, Amritsar, had passed a garnishee order under Section 226 (3) of the Act, holding one M/s Krihsna Kapoor and to the extent of Rs.8,57,377/- and the said order was put into execution and property of M/s Krishna Kapoor and Company were put to I, Jaipur, on 21.01.1986. The same was purchased by one Raja Properties and the sale was confirmed on 14.03.986, whereas, Surinder Nath Kapoor, one of the partners of M/s Krishna and Company, filed an application under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, before the TRO, Jaipur, and he prayed for setting aside the sale of the property, but the missed. An appeal was filed under Rule 86(1)(c) of the Second Schedule to the Act along with an application seeking stay. Since, no stay was granted, he filed a petition before the High Court, which too was dismissed. Thereupon, SLP was filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and Hon’ble the Supreme Court upon finding that the tax liability of the petitioner therein was reduced and the reduced amount had been paid to the department, held that the sale already held confirmed, of which they have granted stay, would stand vacated. An application was filed for clarification before the TRO and the auction purchaser in whose favour the sale had already confirmed, filed a petition to Hon’ble the Supreme Court for recalling its ssal of the SLP. The Court reiterated was to be set aside. Thereafter, the auction purchaser preferred a petition that as the auction sale had been confirmed, the same could not be set aside. Matter again travelled to Supreme Surinder Nath Kapoor vs. Union of India and passed a garnishee order under Section 226 (3) of the Act, holding one M/s Krihsna Kapoor and and the said order was put into execution and property of M/s Krishna Kapoor and Company were put to I, Jaipur, on 21.01.1986. The same was purchased by one 986, whereas, Surinder Nath Kapoor, one of the partners of M/s Krishna and Company, filed an application under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, before the TRO, Jaipur, and he prayed for setting aside the sale of the property, but the missed. An appeal was filed under Rule 86(1)(c) of the Second Schedule to the Act along with an application seeking stay. Since, no stay was granted, he filed a petition before the High Court, which too was e the Supreme Court and Hon’ble the Supreme Court upon finding that the tax liability of the petitioner therein was reduced and the reduced amount had been paid to the department, held that the sale already held confirmed, of which they have granted stay, would stand vacated. An application was filed for clarification before the TRO and the auction purchaser in whose favour the sale had already confirmed, filed a petition to Hon’ble the Supreme Court for recalling its ssal of the SLP. The Court reiterated set aside. Thereafter, the auction purchaser preferred a petition that as the auction sale had been o Supreme RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 Court and it was contended that he was sale could not be set aside after it was confirmed, whereas on behalf of the company, it was urged that the garnishee order for the amount and the sale held in executio considering the aforesaid facts reached to the conclusion that the garnishee order was for a fictitious sum as it was not mentioned in the notice under Section 226 (3) of the Act, 1 to hold as under: “17. There can be no doubt that when an order is made for the Payment of a fictitious sum without giving any opportunity to a person, against whom the order is made, to show cause against the passing of such the said sum, the order is a nullity. In other words, in the eye of law it will be deemed that there was no existence of such an order and any step taken pursuant to or in enforcement of such an order will also be a nullity. It will be tantam decree has no factual existence. In such a case also, the sale will be null and void. The garnishee order that was passed by the IAC (Asst.), Range ll., Amritsar, for the sum of Rs. 8,56,377.55/0 18. Baijnath Sahai v. Ramgut Singh, Vol. 23 I.A. 45. In that case, a property was sold in execution of a certificate issued under the Demands Recovery Act existence of any certificate. The Privy Council observed as follows: 1989 (O&M) [25]-16680-2005 Court and it was contended that he was third sale could not be set aside after it was confirmed, whereas on behalf of the company, it was urged that the garnishee order for the amount and the sale held in execution of such an order are null and void. The Supreme Court considering the aforesaid facts reached to the conclusion that the garnishee order was for a fictitious sum as it was not mentioned in the notice under Section 226 (3) of the Act, 1961, and after cons ld as under:- “17. There can be no doubt that when an order is made for the Payment of a fictitious sum without giving any opportunity to a person, against whom the order is made, to show cause against the passing of such the said sum, the order is a nullity. In other words, in the eye of law it will be deemed that there was no existence of such an order and any step taken pursuant to or in enforcement of such an order will also be a nullity. It will be tantamount to selling a property in execution of a decree when the decree has no factual existence. In such a case also, the sale will be null and void. The garnishee order that was passed by the IAC (Asst.), Range ll., Amritsar, for the sum of Rs. 8,56,377.55/0 18. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Privy Council in Baijnath Sahai v. Ramgut Singh, Vol. 23 I.A. 45. In that case, a property was sold in execution of a certificate issued under the Demands Recovery Act, 1880, when, as a matter of fact, there was no, existence of any certificate. The Privy Council observed as follows: \"If no such certificate is given then the whole basis of the proceeding is gone. There is no judgment, there is nothing corresponding to a judgment or decree for payment of the amount, and there is no foundation for the sale. The authority to proceed to the sale is based on the certificate which has the effect, as has been already pointed out, of a judgment or decree, and if no judgment or decree is given, and no certificate is filed having the force or effect of a judgment or decree, there can be no valid 2005 (O&M) third party, an auction purchaser, the sale could not be set aside after it was confirmed, whereas on behalf of the company, it was urged that the garnishee order for the amount and the sale n of such an order are null and void. The Supreme Court considering the aforesaid facts reached to the conclusion that the garnishee order was for a fictitious sum as it was not mentioned in the notice under 61, and after considering the law, it proceeded “17. There can be no doubt that when an order is made for the Payment of a fictitious sum without giving any opportunity to a person, against whom the order is made, to show cause against the passing of such an order for the said sum, the order is a nullity. In other words, in the eye of law it will be deemed that there was no existence of such an order and any step taken pursuant to or in enforcement of such an order will also be a nullity. It will ount to selling a property in execution of a decree when the decree has no factual existence. In such a case also, the sale will be null and void. The garnishee order that was passed by the IAC (Asst.), Range- ll., Amritsar, for the sum of Rs. 8,56,377.55/0 is, therefore, null and void. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Privy Council in Baijnath Sahai v. Ramgut Singh, Vol. 23 I.A. 45. In that case, a property was sold in execution of a certificate issued under the Bengal Public , 1880, when, as a matter of fact, there was no, existence of any certificate. The Privy Council observed as follows: \"If no such certificate is given then the whole basis of the proceeding is gone. There is no judgment, there is nothing corresponding to a judgment or decree for payment of the amount, and there is no foundation for the sale. The authority to proceed to e sale is based on the certificate which has the effect, as has been already pointed out, of a judgment or decree, and if no judgment or decree is given, and no certificate is filed having the force or effect of a judgment or decree, there can be no valid sale at all.\" auction purchaser, the sale could not be set aside after it was confirmed, whereas on behalf of the company, it was urged that the garnishee order for the amount and the sale n of such an order are null and void. The Supreme Court considering the aforesaid facts reached to the conclusion that the garnishee order was for a fictitious sum as it was not mentioned in the notice under idering the law, it proceeded “17. There can be no doubt that when an order is made for the Payment of a fictitious sum without giving any opportunity to a person, against whom an order for the said sum, the order is a nullity. In other words, in the eye of law it will be deemed that there was no existence of such an order and any step taken pursuant to or in enforcement of such an order will also be a nullity. It will ount to selling a property in execution of a decree when the decree has no factual existence. In such a case also, the sale will be null - In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Privy Council in Baijnath Sahai v. Ramgut Singh, Vol. 23 I.A. 45. In that case, a property Bengal Public , 1880, when, as a matter of fact, there was no, \"If no such certificate is given then the whole basis of the proceeding is gone. There is no judgment, there is nothing corresponding to a judgment or decree for payment of the amount, and there is no foundation for the sale. The authority to proceed to e sale is based on the certificate which has the effect, as has been already pointed out, of a judgment or decree, and if no judgment or decree is given, and no certificate is filed having the force or effect RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 19. ty and any sale held pursuant to such an order is also a nullity. If is quite immaterial that the sale was confirmed. When a decree or order is illegal, any sale held i be set aside on the ground that it was illegal when the sale is in favour of a third party. But, when a decree or order is a nullity, it will be deemed to have no existence at all and any sale held order must also be held to be null and void. In the language of the Privy Council in the above case, there is no judgment, there is nothing corre ponding to a judgment or decree for payment of the amount, and there is no foundation for the sale.” 33. The Court thereafter calculated the interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser at the rate of 15% per annum and directed the same to be paid by the revenue and to certain extent by the partner namely Surinder N 34. We have quoted the aforesaid judgment the present case are similar in nature. Here to the imposition of tax by reassessment. Out of the total demand raised of Rs.11,98,848/ conducted. An information in this regard was given to the TRO and to the Appellate Authority too but it proceeded to ignore and confirm the sale in favour of the auction purchasers. fictitious demand of Rs.11,98,848/ proceedings are held to be nullity in the eyes of law. 35. In examined the question ‘whether the TRO could have confirmed the sale when the demands on account of tax for the recovery of which tax recovery certificate is issued, had ceased to exist’ and observed as under: 1989 (O&M) [26]-16680-2005 19. In the instant case, the garnishee order that was passed was a null ty and any sale held pursuant to such an order is also a nullity. If is quite immaterial that the sale was confirmed. When a decree or order is illegal, any sale held in execution of such a decree or order and confirmed cannot be set aside on the ground that it was illegal when the sale is in favour of a third party. But, when a decree or order is a nullity, it will be deemed to have no existence at all and any sale held order must also be held to be null and void. In the language of the Privy Council in the above case, there is no judgment, there is nothing corre ponding to a judgment or decree for payment of the amount, and there is no foundation for the sale.” The Court thereafter calculated the interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser at the rate of 15% per annum and directed the same to be paid by the revenue and to certain extent by the partner namely Surinder Nath Kapoor. We have quoted the aforesaid judgment the present case are similar in nature. Here to the imposition of tax by reassessment. Out of the total demand raised of Rs.11,98,848/-, part amount had already been paid before the auction was conducted. An information in this regard was given to the TRO and to the Appellate Authority too but it proceeded to ignore and confirm the sale in favour of the auction purchasers. Thus, the entire ba fictitious demand of Rs.11,98,848/- and therefore, the entire auction proceedings are held to be nullity in the eyes of law. In Mohan Wahi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court the question ‘whether the TRO could have confirmed the sale when the demands on account of tax for the recovery of which tax recovery certificate is issued, had ceased to exist’ and observed as under: 2005 (O&M) In the instant case, the garnishee order that was passed was a nulli- ty and any sale held pursuant to such an order is also a nullity. If is quite immaterial that the sale was confirmed. When a decree or order is illegal, n execution of such a decree or order and confirmed cannot be set aside on the ground that it was illegal when the sale is in favour of a third party. But, when a decree or order is a nullity, it will be deemed to have no existence at all and any sale held in execution of such a decree or order must also be held to be null and void. In the language of the Privy Council in the above case, there is no judgment, there is nothing corres- ponding to a judgment or decree for payment of the amount, and there is no The Court thereafter calculated the interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser at the rate of 15% per annum and directed the same to be paid by the revenue and to certain extent by the partner We have quoted the aforesaid judgment in extenso as the facts of the present case are similar in nature. Here too, the petitioner had objected to the imposition of tax by reassessment. Out of the total demand raised of rt amount had already been paid before the auction was conducted. An information in this regard was given to the TRO and to the Appellate Authority too but it proceeded to ignore and confirm the sale in Thus, the entire basis of auction is based on and therefore, the entire auction proceedings are held to be nullity in the eyes of law. case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court the question ‘whether the TRO could have confirmed the sale when the demands on account of tax for the recovery of which tax recovery certificate is issued, had ceased to exist’ and observed as under:- i- ty and any sale held pursuant to such an order is also a nullity. If is quite immaterial that the sale was confirmed. When a decree or order is illegal, n execution of such a decree or order and confirmed cannot be set aside on the ground that it was illegal when the sale is in favour of a third party. But, when a decree or order is a nullity, it will be deemed to in execution of such a decree or order must also be held to be null and void. In the language of the Privy s- ponding to a judgment or decree for payment of the amount, and there is no The Court thereafter calculated the interest on the amount deposited by the auction purchaser at the rate of 15% per annum and directed the same to be paid by the revenue and to certain extent by the partner as the facts of , the petitioner had objected to the imposition of tax by reassessment. Out of the total demand raised of rt amount had already been paid before the auction was conducted. An information in this regard was given to the TRO and to the Appellate Authority too but it proceeded to ignore and confirm the sale in sis of auction is based on and therefore, the entire auction case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court the question ‘whether the TRO could have confirmed the sale when the demands on account of tax for the recovery of which tax recovery RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 “The term ‘reduced’ in sub where the demand consequent upon an appeal or any proceedings under the is obliged to give effect to such reduction in demand and accordingly amend or cancel the certificate. The scheme of Part III of Second Schedule indicates that the sale proceedings terminate on their becoming absolute whereafter all that remains t However, an order confirming the sale by the Tax Recovery Officer is a must. The efficacy of the sale by public auction in favour of the highest bidder has been made to depend on the order of confirmation by t Recovery Officer by incorporating Rule 56 in the Schedule. It is true that ordinarily if there is no application filed for setting aside sale under Rules 60, 61 or 62 and 30 days from the date of the sale have expired, the Tax Recovery Officer has t order shall have to be actually made. The combined effect of Sub of that Recovery Officer, the demand of tax consequent upon an order made in appeal or other proceedings under the Act has been reduced to nil, the Tax Recovery Officer is obliged to cancel the c certificate is cancelled, he shall have no power to make an order confirming the sale. The sale itself being subject to confirmation by the Tax Recovery Officer, would fall to the ground for want of confirmation. xx xx xx U the sale is contemplated to make the sale absolute. Ordinarily, in the absence of an application under Rule 60, 61 or 62 having been made, or having been rejected if made, on expiry o Tax Recovery Officer shall pass an order confirming the sale. However, between the date of sale and the actual passing of the order confirming the sale if an event happens or a fact comes to the notice of the Tax Recover Officer which goes to the root of the matter, the Tax Recovery Officer may refuse to pass an order confirming the sale. The fact that sale was being held for an assumed demand which is found to be fictitious or held to have not existed at all, in fact or oblige the Tax Recovery Officer not to pass an order confirming the sale and rather annul the same. The High Court in our opinion, clearly fell in 1989 (O&M) [27]-16680-2005 “The term ‘reduced’ in sub-section(3) of where the demand consequent upon an appeal or any proceedings under the Income-Tax Act has been reduced to nil also. The Tax Recovery is obliged to give effect to such reduction in demand and accordingly amend or cancel the certificate. The scheme of Part III of Second Schedule indicates that the sale proceedings terminate on their becoming absolute whereafter all that remains to be done is the issuance of sale certificate. However, an order confirming the sale by the Tax Recovery Officer is a must. The efficacy of the sale by public auction in favour of the highest bidder has been made to depend on the order of confirmation by t Recovery Officer by incorporating Rule 56 in the Schedule. It is true that ordinarily if there is no application filed for setting aside sale under Rules 60, 61 or 62 and 30 days from the date of the sale have expired, the Tax Recovery Officer has to make an order confirming a sale. Nevertheless, an order shall have to be actually made. The combined effect of Sub of Section 225 of the Act and Rule 56 and Rule 63 of Second Schedule is that if before an order confirming the sale is actually passed by the Tax Recovery Officer, the demand of tax consequent upon an order made in appeal or other proceedings under the Act has been reduced to nil, the Tax Recovery Officer is obliged to cancel the c certificate is cancelled, he shall have no power to make an order confirming the sale. The sale itself being subject to confirmation by the Tax Recovery Officer, would fall to the ground for want of confirmation. xx xx xx Under Rule 63, confirmation of sale is not automatic. An order confirming the sale is contemplated to make the sale absolute. Ordinarily, in the absence of an application under Rule 60, 61 or 62 having been made, or having been rejected if made, on expiry o Tax Recovery Officer shall pass an order confirming the sale. However, between the date of sale and the actual passing of the order confirming the sale if an event happens or a fact comes to the notice of the Tax Recover Officer which goes to the root of the matter, the Tax Recovery Officer may refuse to pass an order confirming the sale. The fact that sale was being held for an assumed demand which is found to be fictitious or held to have not existed at all, in fact or in the eye of law, is one such event which would oblige the Tax Recovery Officer not to pass an order confirming the sale and rather annul the same. The High Court in our opinion, clearly fell in 2005 (O&M) section(3) of Section 225 would include a case where the demand consequent upon an appeal or any proceedings under has been reduced to nil also. The Tax Recovery Officer is obliged to give effect to such reduction in demand and accordingly amend or cancel the certificate. The scheme of Part III of Second Schedule indicates that the sale proceedings terminate on their becoming absolute o be done is the issuance of sale certificate. However, an order confirming the sale by the Tax Recovery Officer is a must. The efficacy of the sale by public auction in favour of the highest bidder has been made to depend on the order of confirmation by the Tax Recovery Officer by incorporating Rule 56 in the Schedule. It is true that ordinarily if there is no application filed for setting aside sale under Rules 60, 61 or 62 and 30 days from the date of the sale have expired, the Tax o make an order confirming a sale. Nevertheless, an order shall have to be actually made. The combined effect of Sub-section(3) of the Act and Rule 56 and Rule 63 of Second Schedule is if before an order confirming the sale is actually passed by the Tax Recovery Officer, the demand of tax consequent upon an order made in appeal or other proceedings under the Act has been reduced to nil, the Tax Recovery Officer is obliged to cancel the certificate and as soon as the certificate is cancelled, he shall have no power to make an order confirming the sale. The sale itself being subject to confirmation by the Tax Recovery Officer, would fall to the ground for want of confirmation. nder Rule 63, confirmation of sale is not automatic. An order confirming the sale is contemplated to make the sale absolute. Ordinarily, in the absence of an application under Rule 60, 61 or 62 having been made, or having been rejected if made, on expiry of 30 days from the date of sale the Tax Recovery Officer shall pass an order confirming the sale. However, between the date of sale and the actual passing of the order confirming the sale if an event happens or a fact comes to the notice of the Tax Recovery Officer which goes to the root of the matter, the Tax Recovery Officer may refuse to pass an order confirming the sale. The fact that sale was being held for an assumed demand which is found to be fictitious or held to have in the eye of law, is one such event which would oblige the Tax Recovery Officer not to pass an order confirming the sale and rather annul the same. The High Court in our opinion, clearly fell in would include a case where the demand consequent upon an appeal or any proceedings under Officer is obliged to give effect to such reduction in demand and accordingly amend or cancel the certificate. The scheme of Part III of Second Schedule indicates that the sale proceedings terminate on their becoming absolute o be done is the issuance of sale certificate. However, an order confirming the sale by the Tax Recovery Officer is a must. The efficacy of the sale by public auction in favour of the highest he Tax Recovery Officer by incorporating Rule 56 in the Schedule. It is true that ordinarily if there is no application filed for setting aside sale under Rules 60, 61 or 62 and 30 days from the date of the sale have expired, the Tax o make an order confirming a sale. Nevertheless, an section(3) of the Act and Rule 56 and Rule 63 of Second Schedule is if before an order confirming the sale is actually passed by the Tax Recovery Officer, the demand of tax consequent upon an order made in appeal or other proceedings under the Act has been reduced to nil, the Tax ertificate and as soon as the certificate is cancelled, he shall have no power to make an order confirming the sale. The sale itself being subject to confirmation by the Tax nder Rule 63, confirmation of sale is not automatic. An order confirming the sale is contemplated to make the sale absolute. Ordinarily, in the absence of an application under Rule 60, 61 or 62 having been made, or f 30 days from the date of sale the Tax Recovery Officer shall pass an order confirming the sale. However, between the date of sale and the actual passing of the order confirming the y Officer which goes to the root of the matter, the Tax Recovery Officer may refuse to pass an order confirming the sale. The fact that sale was being held for an assumed demand which is found to be fictitious or held to have in the eye of law, is one such event which would oblige the Tax Recovery Officer not to pass an order confirming the sale and rather annul the same. The High Court in our opinion, clearly fell in RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 error in not allowing relief to the petitioner sale.” 36. While the counsel for the respondents have relied o vs. Gurdial Singh and another (1967) 2 SCR 77 Jaswant Kaur (Smt.) and another (1994) 2 SCC 368 Amma v. P.K. case (supra), the larger Bench Act and held that order 21 of the CPC would not apply to the cases of auction sale held under “Though the learned counsel for the auction purchaser has relied heavily on these decisions, suffice it to observe that these are the cases of auction sale held under case of an auction sale held under in view of Rule 56 contained therein. Moreover, in these decisions also, the Suprem sale having been held and no application for setting aside the sale having been moved, yet in exceptional situations the sale may be refused to be confirmed and may be set aside. Ruqmini Amma Vs. P.K. Abdulla, JT has observed that unless the auction purchasers were protected, the properties which are sold in court a It is true that sanctity of sale of property by public auction has to be protected but at the same time a citizen faced with proceedings for recovery of assumed arrears should not be deprived of his property in spite of judicial or quasi confirmed, that there were no arrears. 1989 (O&M) [28]-16680-2005 error in not allowing relief to the petitioner sale.” While the counsel for the respondents have relied o vs. Gurdial Singh and another (1967) 2 SCR 77 Jaswant Kaur (Smt.) and another (1994) 2 SCC 368 Amma v. P.K. Abdulla (1996) 7 SCC 668, but we find that in , the larger Bench examined the provisions of the Income Tax Act and held that order 21 of the CPC would not apply to the cases of auction sale held under Second Schedule to the Act, 19 “Though the learned counsel for the auction purchaser has relied heavily on these decisions, suffice it to observe that these are the cases of auction sale held under Order 21 of the C.P.C case of an auction sale held under Second Schedule of the Income in view of Rule 56 contained therein. Moreover, in these decisions also, the Supreme Court has contemplated situations where in spite of the auction sale having been held and no application for setting aside the sale having been moved, yet in exceptional situations the sale may be refused to be confirmed and may be set aside. Shri S.K. J Ruqmini Amma Vs. P.K. Abdulla, JT has observed that unless the auction purchasers were protected, the properties which are sold in court auctions would not fetch a proper price. It is true that sanctity of sale of property by public auction has to be protected but at the same time a citizen faced with proceedings for recovery of assumed arrears should not be deprived of his property in spite of judicial or quasi- judicial pronouncement holding, before the sale was confirmed, that there were no arrears. 2005 (O&M) error in not allowing relief to the petitioner-appellant by setting aside the While the counsel for the respondents have relied on Janak Raj vs. Gurdial Singh and another (1967) 2 SCR 77, Gurjoginder Singh vs. Jaswant Kaur (Smt.) and another (1994) 2 SCC 368 and Padanathil Ruqmini but we find that in Mohan Wahi’s examined the provisions of the Income Tax Act and held that order 21 of the CPC would not apply to the cases of auction Second Schedule to the Act, 1961 and held as under:- “Though the learned counsel for the auction purchaser has relied heavily on these decisions, suffice it to observe that these are the cases of auction the C.P.C. and, therefore, may not apply to the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act in view of Rule 56 contained therein. Moreover, in these decisions also, the e Court has contemplated situations where in spite of the auction sale having been held and no application for setting aside the sale having been moved, yet in exceptional situations the sale may be refused to be Shri S.K. Jain also relied on Padanathil (1996) 1 SC 381, wherein this court has observed that unless the auction purchasers were protected, the uctions would not fetch a proper price. It is true that sanctity of sale of property by public auction has to be protected but at the same time a citizen faced with proceedings for recovery of assumed arrears should not be deprived of his property in spite judicial pronouncement holding, before the sale was confirmed, that there were no arrears. This observation applies a fortiori setting aside the Janak Raj Gurjoginder Singh vs. Padanathil Ruqmini Mohan Wahi’s examined the provisions of the Income Tax Act and held that order 21 of the CPC would not apply to the cases of auction “Though the learned counsel for the auction purchaser has relied heavily on these decisions, suffice it to observe that these are the cases of auction . and, therefore, may not apply to the tax Act in view of Rule 56 contained therein. Moreover, in these decisions also, the e Court has contemplated situations where in spite of the auction sale having been held and no application for setting aside the sale having been moved, yet in exceptional situations the sale may be refused to be Padanathil (1996) 1 SC 381, wherein this court has observed that unless the auction purchasers were protected, the uctions would not fetch a proper price. It is true that sanctity of sale of property by public auction has to be protected but at the same time a citizen faced with proceedings for recovery of assumed arrears should not be deprived of his property in spite judicial pronouncement holding, before the sale was This observation applies a fortiori RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 under the scheme of Income already been referred to by us.” 37. We conducted under the Income Tax Act on the same footings as that of auction being conducted for execution of a decree by the as the same would be in 38. Article 300A of the Constitution of India property of an individual which is under his away without following due process of law. Once, a reference under Section 256(2) of the Act, 1961, was pending in the Delhi High C dated 11.04.1983 and as there was no demand notice due after passing of the order by the ITAT dated 11.04.1983, neither can it be petitioner should auctions nor can we say that the demand had attained finality. that neither any reserved price was mentioned in the auction notice nor sufficient time was provided to the assessee. Notice was not forwar other members of the family 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961 referred (supra). 39. Once, a reference under Section 256 admitted by the High Court against an order to keep away from conducting auction of properties for the purposes of recovery. The action o to auction hurriedly Court, would be treated as having been done illegally and at their own risk. 1989 (O&M) [29]-16680-2005 under the scheme of Income-tax Act, the relevant provisions whereof have already been referred to by us.” We are also of a firm view that we cannot conducted under the Income Tax Act on the same footings as that of auction being conducted for execution of a decree by the would be in clear distinction of Income Tax default auctions. Article 300A of the Constitution of India property of an individual which is under his away without following due process of law. Once, a reference under Section of the Act, 1961, was pending in the Delhi High C dated 11.04.1983 and as there was no demand notice due after passing of the order by the ITAT dated 11.04.1983, neither can it be should have approached the Courts for granting of stay on the nor can we say that the demand had attained finality. that neither any reserved price was mentioned in the auction notice nor sufficient time was provided to the assessee. Notice was not forwar other members of the family, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961 referred (supra). Once, a reference under Section 256 by the High Court against an order to keep away from conducting auction of properties for the purposes of recovery. The action of the respondents in putting the petitioner’s properties hurriedly without awaiting for the decision of the would be treated as having been done illegally and at their own risk. 2005 (O&M) tax Act, the relevant provisions whereof have firm view that we cannot put the auction conducted under the Income Tax Act on the same footings as that of auction being conducted for execution of a decree by the Court or elsewhere in public on of Income Tax default auctions. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that the property of an individual which is under his possession, cannot be taken away without following due process of law. Once, a reference under Section of the Act, 1961, was pending in the Delhi High Court against order dated 11.04.1983 and as there was no demand notice due after passing of the order by the ITAT dated 11.04.1983, neither can it be legally said that the he Courts for granting of stay on the nor can we say that the demand had attained finality. We further find that neither any reserved price was mentioned in the auction notice nor sufficient time was provided to the assessee. Notice was not forwarded to the , which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Act, 1961 referred (supra). Once, a reference under Section 256 (2) of the Act, 1961, is by the High Court against an order of the ITAT prudence demands to keep away from conducting auction of properties for the purposes of the respondents in putting the petitioner’s properties the decision of the Delhi High would be treated as having been done illegally and at their own risk. tax Act, the relevant provisions whereof have the auction conducted under the Income Tax Act on the same footings as that of auction n public that the , cannot be taken away without following due process of law. Once, a reference under Section urt against order dated 11.04.1983 and as there was no demand notice due after passing of the that the he Courts for granting of stay on the We further find that neither any reserved price was mentioned in the auction notice nor ded to the , which is a mandatory requirement under Rule (2) of the Act, 1961, is prudence demands to keep away from conducting auction of properties for the purposes of the respondents in putting the petitioner’s properties High RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 40. As per the principles of pendency of the issue being alive in Court, would be at one costs and no equity or right can be said to be created who knowingly 41. The principle of of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was know reference pending. The auction purchasers were also in knowledge of the orders passed by the TRO where contention had already been raised by the petitioner about the reference being pending in the Delhi High Court. In fact the writ petition filed before this Court in 1989 impleads the auction purchaser but they have chosen not to participate in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court. This Court had also stayed the proceedings initially but on an application moved by the respo cannot be said that the auction purchasers were not in knowledge of the proceedings pending before this Court as well as before the Delhi High Court and they had, therefore, proceeded at their own risk and costs in d and selling their properties further. Any action taken therefore, be subject to the decision of the case and it cannot be said that the auction had attained finality. We, therefore, h favour of the auction purchasers. 42. Even at the time of admitting the interim order favour of the auction purchasers 1989 (O&M) [30]-16680-2005 As per the principles of lis pendens pendency of the issue being alive in Court, would be at one equity or right can be said to be created knowingly proceeds to make construction or investment thereto. The principle of lis pendens has been incorporated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was know reference pending. The auction purchasers were also in knowledge of the orders passed by the TRO where contention had already been raised by the petitioner about the reference being pending in the Delhi High Court. In fact it petition filed before this Court in 1989 impleads the auction purchaser but they have chosen not to participate in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court. This Court had also stayed the proceedings initially but on an application moved by the respondents, the stay was vacated. Hence, it cannot be said that the auction purchasers were not in knowledge of the proceedings pending before this Court as well as before the Delhi High Court and they had, therefore, proceeded at their own risk and costs in d and selling their properties further. Any action taken therefore, be subject to the decision of the case and it cannot be said that the auction had attained finality. We, therefore, h the auction purchasers. Even at the time of admitting of the present petition and vacating the interim order, this Court was very cautious that no right is created in favour of the auction purchasers, while observing that ‘ 2005 (O&M) lis pendens, the action taken during the pendency of the issue being alive in Court, would be at one’s own risk and equity or right can be said to be created in favour of such person proceeds to make construction or investment thereto. has been incorporated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It was known to one and all about the reference pending. The auction purchasers were also in knowledge of the orders passed by the TRO where contention had already been raised by the petitioner about the reference being pending in the Delhi High Court. In fact it petition filed before this Court in 1989 impleads the auction purchaser but they have chosen not to participate in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court. This Court had also stayed the proceedings initially but ndents, the stay was vacated. Hence, it cannot be said that the auction purchasers were not in knowledge of the proceedings pending before this Court as well as before the Delhi High Court and they had, therefore, proceeded at their own risk and costs in developing and selling their properties further. Any action taken pendent lite, would, therefore, be subject to the decision of the case and it cannot be said that the auction had attained finality. We, therefore, hold that no right is created in the present petition and vacating this Court was very cautious that no right is created in , while observing that ‘if any of the auction , the action taken during the s own risk and in favour of such person has been incorporated in Section 52 n to one and all about the reference pending. The auction purchasers were also in knowledge of the orders passed by the TRO where contention had already been raised by the petitioner about the reference being pending in the Delhi High Court. In fact it petition filed before this Court in 1989 impleads the auction purchaser but they have chosen not to participate in the proceedings before the Delhi High Court. This Court had also stayed the proceedings initially but ndents, the stay was vacated. Hence, it cannot be said that the auction purchasers were not in knowledge of the proceedings pending before this Court as well as before the Delhi High Court eveloping , would, therefore, be subject to the decision of the case and it cannot be said that the created in the present petition and vacating this Court was very cautious that no right is created in if any of the auction RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 purchasers would like to raise any construction, they will do so at their own peril’. 43. We find that the 15.05.2008, has set at naught the complete proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Authorities against the petitioner petitioner was Rs. 5 Lakh to their income was found t 44. The petitioner since 1960. They cannot be deprived of their rightful claim to their own properties. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents of having offered refund alon substitute to the return of the properties. 45. A person whose property is put to auction by the Income Tax Authorities not only faces financial loss but esteem in the adjudication in favour of the assessee 46. We are maintaining the balance of justice by returning back the properties. The concept of taking over and putting to auction properties of persons who were not able to pay the tax without waiting for the result of appeal, is found to be based on the law a had initiated. It is by the aforesaid many rulers had been acquired by the Britishers and the officers of the East India Company. A new interpretation needs to be introduced. Howeve Hon’ble the Supreme Court in 1989 (O&M) [31]-16680-2005 asers would like to raise any construction, they will do so at their own We find that the Delhi High Court has set at naught the complete proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Authorities against the petitioner was not required to pay any additional tax and the additions of Rs. 5 Lakh to their income was found to be unjustified. The petitioners have been fighting for since 1960. They cannot be deprived of their rightful claim to their own properties. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents of having offered refund along with interest cannot be in any manner substitute to the return of the properties. A person whose property is put to auction by the Income Tax Authorities not only faces financial loss but public but while the same cannot be redeemed in spite of a final adjudication in favour of the assessee. We are maintaining the balance of justice by returning back the properties. The concept of taking over and putting to auction properties of persons who were not able to pay the tax without waiting for the result of appeal, is found to be based on the law as the Britishers before independence had initiated. It is by the aforesaid modus operandi had been acquired by the Britishers and the officers of the East mpany. A new interpretation needs to be introduced. Howeve Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Surinder Nath Kap 2005 (O&M) asers would like to raise any construction, they will do so at their own Court vide its judgment dated has set at naught the complete proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Authorities against the petitioner and it stands concluded that the any additional tax and the additions of o be unjustified. been fighting for their justifiable cause since 1960. They cannot be deprived of their rightful claim to their own properties. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents of having g with interest cannot be in any manner to be a suitable A person whose property is put to auction by the Income Tax Authorities not only faces financial loss but also suffers from loss of his public but while the same cannot be redeemed in spite of a final We are maintaining the balance of justice by returning back the properties. The concept of taking over and putting to auction properties of persons who were not able to pay the tax without waiting for the result of s the Britishers before independence modus operandi that the properties of had been acquired by the Britishers and the officers of the East mpany. A new interpretation needs to be introduced. However, Surinder Nath Kapoor’s case (supra) and asers would like to raise any construction, they will do so at their own vide its judgment dated has set at naught the complete proceedings initiated by the the any additional tax and the additions of justifiable cause since 1960. They cannot be deprived of their rightful claim to their own properties. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents of having be a suitable A person whose property is put to auction by the Income Tax loss of his public but while the same cannot be redeemed in spite of a final We are maintaining the balance of justice by returning back the properties. The concept of taking over and putting to auction properties of persons who were not able to pay the tax without waiting for the result of s the Britishers before independence that the properties of had been acquired by the Britishers and the officers of the East r, case (supra) and RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 Mohan Wahi’s to auctions conducted in cases relating to demand of tax. Thus, where the properties are put to auction with ultimately, it is found by the appellate authority that no tax was payable, the properties ought to be restored and to auctions conducted in favour of decree holders woul 47. The reference has been answered the assessment order and demand of interest has become nullity in the eyes of law. The proceedings having initial date, therefore, include auction proceedings conducted on the basis of other proceedings which have rendered Delhi High Court has not been challenged and has be apposite to quote the observations made by the Delhi High Court as under:- “In our opinion, since the assessment is of more than 60 years vintage, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. We also find to apply our mind to the case in the absence of the relevant record particularly why the income tax officer sought to reopen the completed assessment, keeping in mind the contention of the petitioner that there was no m Officer to reopen the assessment. 1989 (O&M) [32]-16680-2005 Mohan Wahi’s case (supra) has charted a new path of interpretation relating to auctions conducted in cases relating to demand of tax. Thus, where the properties are put to auction without awaiting the final result in appeals and ultimately, it is found by the appellate authority that no tax was payable, the properties ought to be restored and the normal to auctions conducted in favour of decree holders woul The reference has been answered the assessment order and demand of interest has become nullity in the eyes of law. The proceedings having become void ab initio initial date, the auction has become a nullity. The action would also, therefore, include auction proceedings conducted on the basis of other proceedings which have rendered void ab initio Delhi High Court has not been challenged and has be apposite to quote the observations made by the Delhi High Court as “In our opinion, since the assessment is of more than 60 years vintage, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. We also find that it would not be possible for us to apply our mind to the case in the absence of the relevant record particularly why the income tax officer sought to reopen the completed assessment, keeping in mind the contention of the petitioner that there was no m Officer to reopen the assessment. 2005 (O&M) case (supra) has charted a new path of interpretation relating to auctions conducted in cases relating to demand of tax. Thus, where the out awaiting the final result in appeals and ultimately, it is found by the appellate authority that no tax was payable, the the normal rule as laid down with regard to auctions conducted in favour of decree holders would not be applicable. The reference has been answered in favour of the petitioner and the assessment order and demand of interest has become nullity in the eyes of void ab initio indicate that from the ction has become a nullity. The action would also, therefore, include auction proceedings conducted on the basis of other void ab initio. The order passed by the Delhi High Court has not been challenged and has attained finality. It would be apposite to quote the observations made by the Delhi High Court as “In our opinion, since the assessment is of more than 60 years vintage, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the that it would not be possible for us to apply our mind to the case in the absence of the relevant record particularly why the income tax officer sought to reopen the completed assessment, keeping in mind the contention of the petitioner that there was no material before the Income Tax Officer to reopen the assessment. case (supra) has charted a new path of interpretation relating to auctions conducted in cases relating to demand of tax. Thus, where the out awaiting the final result in appeals and ultimately, it is found by the appellate authority that no tax was payable, the laid down with regard the petitioner and the assessment order and demand of interest has become nullity in the eyes of indicate that from the ction has become a nullity. The action would also, therefore, include auction proceedings conducted on the basis of other he order passed by the attained finality. It would be apposite to quote the observations made by the Delhi High Court as “In our opinion, since the assessment is of more than 60 years vintage, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the that it would not be possible for us to apply our mind to the case in the absence of the relevant record particularly why the income tax officer sought to reopen the completed assessment, keeping in mind the contention of the aterial before the Income Tax RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 There is nothing to suggest that approval was granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the Income Tax Officer to issue notice to the assessee for assessment after a gap of 16 years whi have never the less to be satisfied that the revenue has acted in accordance with law, particularly since there is an argument to the contrary. In the absence of relevant material being produced b inference against the revenue without going into merits of the case. We have taken into consideration that the matter is 60 years old and we need to bring the litigation to an end sometime. 48. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and 23.07.1979, 12.12.1985 and 17.05.1988 respondents are directed the auction purchasers and subsequent p whom interest have been devolved. property done after the auction by the auction purchasers, shall be treated as void ab initio the name of the petitioner empowered to pass any orders in favour of any person, who has acquired any right on the properties after the a 15.11.1985. appropriate measures for the said purpose. 1989 (O&M) [33]-16680-2005 There is nothing to suggest that approval was granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the Income Tax Officer to issue notice to the assessee for assessment after a gap of 16 years while this has not been directly challenged by the assesee, we have never the less to be satisfied that the revenue has acted in accordance with law, particularly since there is an argument to the contrary. In the absence of relevant material being produced before us, we are left with no opinion but to draw an adverse inference against the revenue without going into merits of the case. We have taken into consideration that the matter is 60 years old and we need to bring the litigation to an end sometime.” In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and 1979, 12.12.1985 and 17.05.1988 are set aside and are directed to restore the properties of the petitioner the auction purchasers and subsequent purchasers/assignees or persons to whom interest have been devolved. We further hold that any transfer of property done after the auction by the auction purchasers, shall be treated as and the title and ownership of the properties shall be restored in the name of the petitioner-HUF. It is made clear that no civil court would be empowered to pass any orders in favour of any person, who has acquired any right on the properties after the auction conducted on . The Income Tax Officials would be responsible to take appropriate measures for the said purpose. 2005 (O&M) There is nothing to suggest that approval was granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the Income Tax Officer to issue notice to the assessee for assessment after a gap of 16 years le this has not been directly challenged by the assesee, we have never the less to be satisfied that the revenue has acted in accordance with law, particularly since there is an argument to the contrary. In the absence of relevant material being produced efore us, we are left with no opinion but to draw an adverse inference against the revenue without going into merits of the case. We have taken into consideration that the matter is 60 years old and we need to bring the litigation to an end In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and orders dated set aside and thus quashed. The to restore the properties of the petitioner-HUF from urchasers/assignees or persons to We further hold that any transfer of property done after the auction by the auction purchasers, shall be treated as and the title and ownership of the properties shall be restored in HUF. It is made clear that no civil court would be empowered to pass any orders in favour of any person, who has acquired any uction conducted on 31.10.1985 and The Income Tax Officials would be responsible to take appropriate measures for the said purpose. The Income Tax Authorities There is nothing to suggest that approval was granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the Income Tax Officer to issue notice to the assessee for assessment after a gap of 16 years le this has not been directly challenged by the assesee, we have never the less to be satisfied that the revenue has acted in accordance with law, particularly since there is an argument to the contrary. In the absence of relevant material being produced efore us, we are left with no opinion but to draw an adverse inference against the revenue without going into merits of the case. We have taken into consideration that the matter is 60 years old and we need to bring the litigation to an end orders dated he HUF from urchasers/assignees or persons to We further hold that any transfer of property done after the auction by the auction purchasers, shall be treated as and the title and ownership of the properties shall be restored in HUF. It is made clear that no civil court would be empowered to pass any orders in favour of any person, who has acquired any .10.1985 and The Income Tax Officials would be responsible to take he Income Tax Authorities RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-2104-1989 would be required to refund the auction price obtained in auction from the auction purchasers along with interest @ 15% per annum as prevalent in the year 1985. The order shall be implemented within one month failing which the petitioner would be free to initiate contempt proceedings without further notice. The petitioner is also held enti by the income tax authorities. 49. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. 27.05.2024 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 1989 (O&M) [34]-16680-2005 would be required to refund the auction price obtained in auction from the rchasers along with interest @ 15% per annum as prevalent in the year 1985. The order shall be implemented within one month failing which the petitioner would be free to initiate contempt proceedings without further The petitioner is also held entitled to costs of Rs.1,00,000/ by the income tax authorities. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) ( 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : 2. Whether reportable? : 2005 (O&M) would be required to refund the auction price obtained in auction from the rchasers along with interest @ 15% per annum as prevalent in the year 1985. The order shall be implemented within one month failing which the petitioner would be free to initiate contempt proceedings without further tled to costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No would be required to refund the auction price obtained in auction from the rchasers along with interest @ 15% per annum as prevalent in the year 1985. The order shall be implemented within one month failing which the petitioner would be free to initiate contempt proceedings without further to be paid RAJESH KUMAR 2024.05.30 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. "