Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length on the fundamental question of sale proclamations being barred by limitation as prescribed in Rule 68B of the Schedule II. In view of our answer to this issue, we have not examined the petitioner's other grievances leaving it open to be urged in future if need so arises.

5. In the context of such facts, learned counsel for os wp 423-19.doc the petitioner took us extensively through the provisions contained in Schedule II referring to recovery of unpaid tax. In particular, our attention was drawn to Rule 68B which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1.6.1992. It was contended that this rule permits sale of immovable property for recovery of unpaid taxes only within three years from the date of order giving rise to the tax dues, after which, the sale of immovable property would not be permitted. Learned counsel had relied on the objects behind insertion of the said rule and the notes on clauses explaining the said provision contained in the Finance Bill of 1992 in support of his contention. Learned counsel had also relied on the following decisions:-

(4) Where the sale of immovable property is not made in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the attachment order in relation to the said property shall be deemed to have been vacated on the expiry of the time of limitation specified under this rule."

As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 68B, no sale of immovable property would be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to a demand of tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the os wp 423-19.doc provisions of Section 245-I or Chapter XX of the Act which deals with the appeals and revisions. Proviso to sub-rule (1), however, gives some leverage in case where the immovable property is required to be sold due to the fact that the highest bid is less than the reserve price or where the case falls under Rule 57 or Rule 58 or the same is set aside under Rule 61. In such a case, the period of limitation of sale would stand extended by one year. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 68B provides for exclusion of certain periods while computing the period of limitation. Sub-rule (3) makes special provision for cases where the immovable property is attached before 1.6.1992 and the order giving rise to the demand of tax, interest etc has also become conclusive and final before the said date. In such a situation, the period of limitation as referred to in sub-rule (1) would commence from 1.6.1992. This sub-rule, thus, makes it clear that the limitation provided under sub-rule (1) for sale of immovable property would apply also to the instances of attachment of immovable property and finalization of the tax demand which had occurred prior to 1.6.1992. In such a case, the starting point for computing the period of limitation would be os wp 423-19.doc 1.6.1992, that is the date on which the said Rule was inserted. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 68B provides that where the sale of immovable property is not made in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the attachment order in relation to the said property shall be deemed to have been vacated on the expiry of the time of limitation specified thereunder.

53.3 This amendment takes effect from 1st June, 1992."

12. Appreciating the said Rule in the light of the purpose for which the same was inserted would show that under sub-rule (1), the legislature has now provided for the first time w.e.f. 1.6.1992 a time limit of a period of three years for sale of attached immovable property starting from the end of financial year in which the order giving rise to a demand of tax, interest etc has become conclusive. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 68B provides for the consequences of the immovable property not being sold within such time. As per this sub-rule in such a situation, the attachment order in relation to the said property would be deemed to have been vacated on the expiry of the time limit specified. In the present case, Rule 68B would apply with full force. The os wp 423-19.doc attachment of the said immovable properties was ordered way back in the year 1997. The sale proclamation which was made in February, 2019 was thus, hit by the period of limitation prescribed under such Rule. By virtue of sub-rule (4) of Rule 68B therefore, upon completion of the period of limitation, the attachment would be deemed to have been vacated. The auction sale, therefore, could not have been carried out.

The crux of the judgment, therefore is that the Court was not inclined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner since in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner failed to show equity in his favour. In the judgment, of course, the Court has observed that Rule 68B of the IInd Schedule would not apply to the certificates issued prior to 1.6.1992. To this extent, we are unable to persuade ourselves to follow the same line. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 68B makes it clear that the limitation prescribed under sub-rule (1) would apply also to past instances, with os wp 423-19.doc necessary modification provided therein which we have already discussed earlier.