- (1.) The Court : The petitioner who is one of the trustees of the Trust Estate of Kayan Trust has filed this writ petition challenging the sale of the trust properties by auction by the Respondent Tax Recovery Officer in connection with the certificate Case Nos. 148 to 173/TC/81-82 and others for which a purported notice has been published in the "Statesman", dated 9.2.1987 and praying for prohibiting the respondents from proceeding further with the said certificate cases and for cancelling, rescinding and setting aside the order purporting to sell by auction the premises No.103, Park Street and 156, Maharaja Nanda Kumar Road as published in the Statesman, dated 9.2.1987 or otherwise and for some consequential relief.
(2.) Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. by the interim order directed, the auction sale to be held on the date fixed but only restrained the completion of the said sale till the disposal of this writ petition. Pursuant to the said order of B. P. Banerjee, J. the above two properties have been put to public auction and the same has been purchased in auction by Ravi Auto Ltd. who was a highest bidder and Ravi Auto Ltd. has thereafter been added as Added Respondent by the learned Judge.
(3.) The writ petitioner has challenged in the writ petition the above sale on the following grounds : (a) the purported action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's application to adjourn and/or postpone the sale published in the Statesman, dated 9.2.1987 is illegal and in no proper exercise of discretion as required under the provisions of Schedule II to the Income Tax Act (b) the respondents without giving the petitioner an opportunity to inspect the records arbitrarily, mala fide and illegally imposed a huge tax liability; (c) the Respondents without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the petitioner's case illegally and mala fide refused to grant any stay as prayed for in the application which is annexure 'F' to this petition, (d) the respondents without following the provisions as laid down in the Schedule II of the Income Tax Act for recovery of tax acted capriciously and in contrary with the procedure as laid down, (e) the purported action of the respondents violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India, (f) the purported action of the respondents violates the principles of natural justice to the petitioner, (g) the purported action of the respondents in not adjourning and postponing the sale as published in the Statesman, dated 9.2.1987 violates the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (h) the respondent No. 1 although has been empowers to adjourn and/or stop the sale under Rule 15 of the Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961 illegally and mala fide and without any reason failed to exercise his discretion in adjourning the sale as published in the Statesman, dated 9.2.1987.;