Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishandas Parwani vs The Commissioner on 14 December, 2016
WP-1024-2016
(VISHANDAS PARWANI Vs THE COMMISSIONER)
14-12-2016
Parties through their respective counsel.
During the course of hearing of this writ petition, it
transpires that initially vide annexure P/8, a notice
was issued in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on
29.03.2013 for sale of certain property after
attachment by the recovery officer, however, vide
annexure P/9 the property was released by the
recovery officer within four days to respondents No.
4 and 5 on their assurance that the tax liability would be discharged by them in installment. However, now during the course of hearing of this writ petition, it transpires that not only tax liability was discharged by respondents No. 4 and 5 but most of the property which was under attachment as it evident from annexure P/8 and it was released vide annexure P/9 have been sold by respondents No.4 and 5 and there is no explanation as to how the property was sold without permission of the department. Let a detailed reply be filed by the competent officer of the department explaining this position. List the matter in 2nd week of January, 2017. Till next date of hearing the interim order shall continue to remain in operation.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE kundan