| Case ID |
0ab6a116-d5a6-482a-9a4e-e30dfc30097b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 1980 |
| Decision Date |
May 12, 1980 |
| Hearing Date |
May 12, 1980 |
| Decision |
The court held that the forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioners was not automatic. The Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) was required to exercise discretion and consider the circumstances of the case. The TRO had failed to do so, as he treated the forfeiture as automatic due to a supposed clear and wilful violation of the rules. The case was remanded to the TRO for fresh consideration regarding the forfeiture of the amount deposited by the petitioners, taking into account the application submitted by the defaulter's wife for setting aside the sale and the total amount deposited by the petitioners within the stipulated time. |
| Summary |
In the case of Pishori Lal Sethi v. Tax Recovery Officer, the Allahabad High Court deliberated on the procedural aspects of tax recovery under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The key issue revolved around the forfeiture of the auction deposit made by the highest bidders, the petitioners, following a tax recovery auction. The court examined the implications of Rule 57 and Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that the forfeiture of the deposit was not an automatic consequence of failing to pay the full auction amount within the stipulated time. Instead, the court underscored the necessity for the TRO to exercise discretion based on the facts presented, particularly considering the timely application made by the defaulter's wife to set aside the sale. This judgment reinforces the importance of following due process and exercising discretion in tax recovery proceedings, ensuring that all relevant circumstances are adequately considered. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.,
V.N. Mehrotra, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
Pishori Lal Sethi
|
| Respondents |
Tax Recovery Officer
|
| Citations |
1991 SLD 1580 = (1991) 188 ITR 528
|
| Other Citations |
Manilal Mohanlal Shah v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad AIR 1954 SC 349
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
222
|