KANTILAL DAHYABHAI SHAH ALIAS K D DASADIA Vs. TEJ PRAKASH TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has challenged certain proceedings taken against him by the Tax Recovery Officer No. 1 the first respondent herein under Rule 14 of the Second Schedule Part 1 to the Income Tax Act 1961.

(2.) The petitioner says that he is a citizen of India and claims protection of the fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petitioner and one Shambhukumar Keshavlal Patel were working as organizers of a proposed Co-operative Housing Society called Akhandanand Co-operative Housing Society and the two organizers took part in the auction sale of a vacant plot of land bearing Survey No. 348 admeasuring 8712 square yards situated on the outskirts of Nava Wadaj Village Ahmedabad City. This Survey Number was said to belong to one Laxmichand Ambaram Gandhi. In pursuance of certain tax liabilities of Laxmichand Ambaram Gandhi the Tax Recovery Officer on behalf of the Income-tax Department of the Government of India put up Survey No. 348 for sale and what was sought to be sold was the right title and interest of Laxmichand Ambaram Gandhi in the said Survey Number. The date for the auction sale as mentioned in the proclamation was originally September 13 1972 but the sale was postponed to September 20 1972 The petitioner was the highest bidder at the auction sale and he was declared to be the highest bidder and the amount of the purchase price mentioned in the bid was Rs. 2 91 0 The Tax Recovery Inspector was the Officer who was delegated by the Tax Recovery Officer to hold the auction sale. At the time of the auction sale the petitioner paid a deposit of Rs. 1 0 and thereafter the petitioner paid Rs. 72 0 by a cheque drawn on the Central Bank of India Nava Wadaj Ahmedabad but the payment of the cheque was stopped by the petitioner and thus the result was that instead of 25 per cent of the price at which the sale was knocked down to the petitioner being deposited with the officer holding the sale only Rs. 1 0 were paid by way of deposit. The petitioner did not pay either the full amount of 25 per cent of the purchase price as deposit nor did the petitioner pay within 15 days as required by the relevant Rules the remaining 75 per cent of the purchase price. Thereafter another sale was held and ultimately the property was sold at the resale of the property to the fourth respondent herein for Rs. 2 0 1 Within a few days of the date of the resale the defaulting tax payer Laxmichand Ambaram Gandhi applied to the Tax Recovery Officer praying that the shortfall in the price on resale namely Rs. 90 88 being the deficiency of price on resale should be recovered from the petitioner and thereupon respondent No. 1 the Tax Recovery Officer issued a notice of demand dated August 29 1973 requiring the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 90 88 as deficiency of purchase price on resale.

(3.) The petitioner has contended in the petition that on the date on which the auction sale was held because of certain provisions of law no valid sale of an open plot of land of this size could be made in Ahmedabad City in favour of any particular person and various other contentions regarding the validity of the sale proceedings at the auction sale and also the validity of the sale in favour of the fourth respondent have been set out in the petition. However in our opinion the entire matter can be disposed of on a very short ground and therefore it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness or otherwise of the other contentions taken up in the petition.