| Case ID |
0a738bd5-d5a1-4db0-b36a-90dcfcdf28cc |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1987 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1987 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 31, 1986 |
| Decision |
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of the sale of the petitioner's properties due to the Tax Recovery Officer's jurisdiction over Yanam. The Court found that notifications had conferred jurisdiction upon the TRO, Visakhapatnam, over Kakinada, which included Yanam. The petitioner had failed to challenge the jurisdiction earlier, raising objections only after the sale had occurred. The Court held that there was no total want of jurisdiction, and thus, the discretionary powers under Article 226 were not warranted in this case. The validity of the tax recovery certificates was upheld as the petitioner did not substantiate claims regarding pre-certificate interest or jurisdictional errors effectively. The decision reaffirmed the principle that High Courts exercise discretion in matters of jurisdictional irregularities but are not obliged to interfere unless there is a clear failure of justice. |
| Summary |
The case of Dadala Ramanayya vs. TAX Recovery Officer revolves around the jurisdiction of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) over properties located in Yanam. The petitioner, a resident of Yanam, contested the sale of his properties due to alleged jurisdictional issues, claiming that the TRO did not have authority over Yanam, a Union territory. The High Court analyzed the notifications that conferred jurisdiction upon the TRO, determining that the sale was valid and that the petitioner had not exercised his right to challenge the jurisdiction timely. The ruling emphasized the importance of timely objections in tax recovery proceedings and clarified that the High Court's discretionary powers under Article 226 are not automatic but depend on the specifics of each case. This case is significant as it highlights the legal principles governing tax recovery and the jurisdictional authority of tax officials in India, providing clarity on the procedural aspects involved in such disputes. |
| Court |
High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
JEEVAN REDDY,
RAM RAO
|
| Lawyers |
Rama Rao,
K. Nageswara Rao,
M. Suryanarayana Murthy,
T. Bheem Sen
|
| Petitioners |
Dadala Ramanayya
|
| Respondents |
TAX Recovery Officer
|
| Citations |
1987 SLD 3401,
(1987) 167 ITR 266
|
| Other Citations |
Isha Beevi v. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of India,
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
Article 226,
Rule 2 of Part I of the Second Schedule,
Rule 118(1)
|