t IN THE HIGH••• OOUE.T OF MA RNATAKA AT BANGALORE BABE]) THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 ]3EFORE THE HON t BLE MH,JUSTICE TIRATE S 4 THAKUR flfl662’iq2, BETWEEN :— Sbri.B,K, Nagaraja Setty since deat by his L.R Sri.B.N,Sunrananya, age:Major, residing of Sainath Road, Arsikere, Hassan Diet, 1 ,Petitioner. C By Sri,R,]?admanabban, Adv., AND: 1 The Second Income—tax Officer, let Cross, Mission Hoe tal Road, Northern Extension, HASSAN. 2. The Tax Recovery Officer, Income—tax Department, No.4634/I, t Ohayanilaya’ Shivaji Road, N.R.Mohalla, MVSORE 57O 007. 3. Tax Reoovery Offioer—III, Unit: Building Annexe, Mission Ro4d, BA]LALORE—560 0274 4. The Commissiozir of Income—tax, Revenue Survey Building, BANGALORE. 4 .Respondents 4 C By Sri,M.V 4 Seehaohala,Adv,, ) — 2 a This writ p€. tition filed praying to quash the Proclamatroc of sale issued by 8—2, in llo,TRO/!US/HS’i/ 6 to 8/85—86 vide Annexures—K; etc., This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following order : ORDER The Tax Recovery Officer Mysore issued a procla mation for the sale of certain immoveable croperty owned by the petitioi.ier: it. oonneotion with the reoery of a sum of Rs75,983/— due and reoerahle from him as. arrears of income—tax, Aggrieved the petitioner filed W,PNo,3495/1987 ft which it was contended that the anoint determined by the income—tax Authorities did not g.ive credit to certain pa..i.nts allegedly made by him so that any proceedings for the sale of the property on the assumption that the arrears still remained pa able was unjustified, At the )2earing of the petition, the petitioner prcd.uced a letter dated 26th of March 1987 from the II Inc cisc—tax Officer, Hassan, i.rcm which i.t appes.red that after giving deduction of certain psents made by the petitioner, a im of Rs,56.,211/a only was due and recoverable f.rcm him This Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner reserving liberty for the authorities. to issue a fresh —3- proclamation for th.e correct amount recoxerable by the respondents. 2. A fresh proclamation was thereafter issued a copy whereof has been produced as ANIEXUflE—K, proposing to auction the property owned by the petitioner on : 2 1st of ?bruary 1992, for the recovery of a sum of Rs,1,77,297/— inclusive of costs and interest recoverable from the petitioner. An ..uction appears to have been held on the date and the tthe fixed and the posees•. ion of••• the property in ••cation delive red to the auction purchaser on the same date, Aggrieved by the proclamation and the consequential action taken by the Respondents, the peti tioner has filed the present writ petition rrlmarily on the ground that the liability of the petitioner had not been properly determined, i do not however see any subs— tsnce in that contention, The amount of income—tax recoverable from the oetitioner as noticed earlier was a srm of Rs,56,196/— to which the Respondents have added interest reccverable under the rovisions of the Act, The total liability thus comes to Ra,i,77,927/— as the principal amount of tax axpears to have remained unpaid since 27th March, 1975, There is nothing before me to suggest that the determination of the amount of V tax a•s on the said date or the addition of ir.terest to the same, for the period unto the date of aiction suffers frou any error mathematical or otherwise. In the absence of. anything to support the assertion marie by the petI tioner, that the determination the amount is not prorer. I have no reason to hold that the amount of tax arrears determined against the petitioner have not been pronerly determIned, If the et 1 toner is able to demonstrate before the authoritiee that the amount adjus ted by them out of the sale proceeds is not actually due, he shall be entitled to the refund of the excess recorded. Till he does so the sale of the property for the recovery of whatever be the outstanding cannot be found fault with, 3, That apart the auction purchaser has not been added as a party/Respondent to these nrooeedinns. In his absence’ it i.s difficult even otherwise to interfere with the auction which has already concluded. 4. There is no merit in. this writ 1E? ttion which fails and is herety dismissed but in the oi.roumstsnces without any orders as to costs, t1• Abid/ Jan!—