Law:

Section:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ - Maintainability of - Petitioner was a resident of Yanam, a Union territory - For assessment year 1964-65, ITO treated certain immovable properties situated in Kakinada town as of assessee and completed assessment - In subsequent years, petitioner defaulted in paying tax due in respect of those properties - Ultimately three tax recovery certificates were issued to TRO, Visakhapatnam on 23-2-1972, 5-10-1974 and 19-8-1975, respectively - Petitioner's properties at Yanam were sold in auction on 13-3-1984 - Petitioner challenged vali- dity of said sale in writ - Whether when sale had taken place in 1984 after twelve years of first tax recovery certificate was issued, it was not open to petitioner to challenge jurisdiction of TRO under article 226 - Held, yes - Whether in absence of notice or in absence of date on which notice under rule 2 of Part I of the Second Schedule was served upon petitioner, it could be held that at relevant time jurisdiction had not been conferred upon concerned TRO - Held, no - Whether when though petitioner contended that a part of amount mentioned in tax recovery certificate related to pre-certificate interest but had neither raised said contention before TRO nor could factually establish it, High Court could interfere under article 226 - Held, no Facts The petitioner was a resident of Yanam, a Union territory. For the assessment year 1964-65, the ITO treated certain immovable properties situated in Kakinada town as of the assessee and completed the assessments. In the subsequent assessment years, the petitioner defaulted in paying the tax due in respect of those properties. Ultimately three tax recovery certificates were issued to the TRO, Visakhapatnam, on 23-2-1972, 5-10-1974 and 19-8-1975 respectively. The petitioner's properties at Yanam were brought to sale on 13-3-1984. At the auction one A purchased those properties and deposited the entire sale amount within the time prescribed. On writ, the petitioner challenged validity of the said sale on three grounds, viz., (i ) that the TRO, Visakhapatnam had no jurisdiction over Yanam and, therefore, sale of property at Yanam was without…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492