Dismissed

Smt K.Madhavi v. Union of India

Telangana HC22 Dec 2022WP/21551/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the auction of a subject property by the Income Tax Department. The Court held that since the auction occurred before a civil decree was passed, no third-party right vested in the petitioner against the department, and the action was lawful.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs; the petition for quashing the orders dated 14.06.2000 and 04.12.1996 was dismissed.

Smt K.Madhavi Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

[^32s5 ]

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2155'l OF 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. K.Madhavi, Wo K.Ravinder Reddy aged about 34 years, R/o. 1-8-123, Balasamudram, Hanumakonda, Warangal Dist, Rep by her G.P.A. Holder K.Ravinder Reddy, S/o K.Shesha Reddy, aged about 60yrs,^'12-13-390, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Union of lndia, rep by its Secretary Ministery of Finance, Central Secretariat Building, New Delhi.

¶12

Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶13

Tax Recovery Officer lll, 8th Floor, Posnet Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the R2 passed in H.Qts.lUsettle.Commn./15(8)/90-9'1 dt 14-06-2000 & H.Qts.ll/Settle.Commn./15(8)/90-91 dt.04-12-'1996 as illegal, arbitrary & consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner.

¶16

N oF 20 P P.N :269 OF 2

¶17

Petition under Sectlon^'15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto fix an early date of hearing of the WP

¶18

CounSeI for the Petitioner: SRI. P.CHAKRAVARTHY FOR SRI. O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No,1: SRl. G.PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SoLlclToR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: M/s. SAPNA REDoY FoR sRl. J.V.PRASAD, sc FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

i t

¶22

THE I{!\ lrlJ E]^{(]IIII-F'IUSTICE} UIIAI BHLTYAN !\D

¶23

TI{E-IIQ ]! ]^B] -E*S-BUU,( [ I CE^{C.V.B HASKAR RE DDY} \Y.P.N,r.21551^{of 2002}

¶24

ORDER, /Pur /r,tloa' b l, rl : Ct ie1' J t.t t cc L; iia t I l, ! ya n)

¶25

Fleard Mr. ].r lhal ravrrrl,y, learned counsel represe rting

¶26

Mr. C).li{ancher .rr d(),. lrarntrl ienior Counsel for the petiti,xer; Mr. Ci.l)ravee n I( :tnz r" l:arnci' L)eputy Solicitor Gencral of ndia f<rr respondent i\r.; lurd tI. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel reprcse,lting Mr. .1..Prasacl, ]irrned Senior Standiflg Cornsel, lnct>me Tax I)eprrr mlnt for rc:if ,)ndents No.2 and 3

¶27

By filing th s p:trtic,n urr:I,:r Article 226 of the Constinrrion of India, petition.r steks quashirrg of the orders dated 14.06.2000 and 04. l,2.1996 pr s,ec l>y :'csp,),r(lcnt No.2

¶28

By the ordr:r drted 14 121')96, petitioner was inlormed that her perition datr:d 11.0')1995 t:ould not be entertained under Rulc 8ti(1) r'r:ad 'vith Rrrie 1L'61 o[ the second schedule tc the Inc<;me Tax Act, l!t61 tb;iefly 'r hc Act'hereinafter).

¶29

I I

¶30

4 By the ordt,r d;ted 14.[t,5 2t)00, petitioner was inFormed rhar

¶31

¶32

for defa.ult in pavrrent o'inc,.,nr,-l rax dues by Sri I(Indira Rrddy,

¶33

¶34

..r..

¶35

the subject property was auction sold for recovery o[ the tax arce rs. Though petitioner had obtained a decree in O.S.No.353 ol 7992 dated 19.04.1999 qra Sri l{.lndira Reddy, the said decree was not binding on the Income Tax Department as the department was not a party to the suit. Petitjoner had sought lor impleadment of the Income Tax Department in the suit but the same was not granted by the civil court as well as by the High Court in thc civil revision petition filed by the pcdtioner. That apart, the subject properry was sold by the Incomc^-fax Departmcnt in pubLic auction even before the decree was passed.

¶36

¶37

Learned counsel for thc petitioner submits that as per the decree of the civil Court, peririoner is the owner of the sub)cct land and not Sri K.Indita Reddy. Therefore, for rcahzrngthe incomc tax dues of Sri K.Indira Reddy, the subject property could not have been auction sold by the Income Tax Department. On a query by the Court as to why petidoner did not file objection during the auction proceedings in tems o[ the second schcdule to the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had takcn recourse to civil court proceedings.

¶38

, ,

¶39

¶40

llc that as i nray, thc s.rlr ject property having been auction sold before thg l,scfce^\vas f,aised by the civil c()urt which has given lise to thirr1 parly right:i rrrd interest, v/e are of the vieru that if thc petitioncr hrLs 'rny lyieva rr:c, the same is against Sri I(.. ndira Reddy and his kE"l ,rt:irs. It r open to the petitioner to aveil her remedl, qua Sri lr-.ln,lira Reci,ll u-r accordance with law. In r;o far Incorn: Ta>. l)c1 a rlrr(:nr is c: rr:crncd, the action takcn cannot bc

¶41

faultcd. Mcteov.r. tlre aucEor sele has attained hnalirl,

¶42

iiubje,:t to t re abt>,,e, tlc writ petition is disposed of No

¶43

cosls.

¶44

;\s a scclu -'l nrisccllanr:, Lrs petitions, pending if any, stand

¶45

closcd.

¶46

¶47

SO/.G.I)IREESHA ASSISTANT RITGISTRAR ["r:lr,tE coPY// 4 SECTIOil OFFICER

¶48

¶49

1 Th,3 Secretary lMinister) rf Fir;,r:e, Central Secretariat Building, Urrion of lndia, New Dellri 2 Commisriioner ) ln:om€ Tax^'lvderabad, Telangana. 3 Tax Recovery i)''ict;r lll, 8th Fl,.cr, Posent Bhavah, Hyderabad. 4 One CC b SR^,.) I\4ANC)HEF ?I:DDY, Advocate [OPUC] ONE CC iO SR^I.i.PRA,/EEN }:L]VIAR. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENI:RAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] 6 ONE CC rI SR .].I,/ PRi\SAD ]:;(] FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMEI-IT loPUcl 7 Tw,l CD^rlop e; PSK. BS BSK

¶50

HtGH COt.lFl''

¶51

DATEI D : 2 2 I^1l',t. l'r-l il.2

¶52

ORDE:R

¶53

WP.No.2ir 55'1^rlf ll(tl)21

¶54

.\ rtE S T' 416
a
(
a
s ar zE JN?ntl

¶55

DISPOSII.{G^(:)I: THE W':IIT PETITION WITHICUT COI:;I$.

¶56

r{
tt)
ws-
I

Smt K.Madhavi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K.Madhavi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Ashtha Power Corportation Private Limited Vs M/s. Andhara Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corportation

M/s. Prasad Film Laborator Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-I

Ap. State Seeds Development Corporation, Hyd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyd.

Mohd. Rafeeq Ahmed Vs The Union of India

Principal Commissioner of Customs, Vs M/s. Edelweiss Commodities Services Limited

Greenfinch Team Management (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India