Disposed

Mohd. Anvarul Haq and 2 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2019WRIC/24718/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition raising objections to a tax demand without adjudicating merits, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate taxing authority for objections.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to file objection before the appropriate taxing authority within three weeks;Stay of demand for six weeks or until disposal of objection.

Mohd. Anvarul Haq and 2 Others Vs State of U P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24718 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Anvarul Haq And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vineet Sankalp

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anand Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinit Sankalp, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶6

As per instructions obtained by Sri Vinit Sankalp, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the assessment has been made on the basis of Second Amendment Rules, 2013 and it is for the period running from the year 2013 onwards that the assessment has come to be made and the demand has been raised vide bill dated 11.07.2019.

¶7

The petitioner on the contrary submits that after his appeal earlier filed in the year 2009-10 came to be decided, he has continuously paid the taxes and earlier the assessment from 01.04.2013-2014 the assessment was made of Rs.48,123/- which the petitioner has paid and subsequently, the petitioner has again paid the amount on 20.04.2018 to the tune of Rs.2,373/-. Therefore, he submits that the assessment which has come to be made vide impugned bill is not only exorbitant but without any basis. He submits that before the assessing authority proceeded to make assessment exercising power under Section 141 of the Municipality Act, 1960, the petitioner ought to have been served with a notice and should have been heard.

¶8

Be that as it may, as the petitioner has a remedy to

¶9

approach the authority against the bill raised of Rs.4,99,863/- vide bill dated 11.07.2019 impugned in the writ petition as Annexure-1, we intend to dispose of writ petition at this stage with a direction that the petitioner shall file objection before the appropriate taxing authority under Section 141 of the Municipality Act, 1960 within a period of three weeks from today and in the event, if the petitioner moves an application as directed hereinabove, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority and objection of the petitioner shall be disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, positively within a further period of four weeks. For a period of six weeks or until the disposal of the objection of the petitioner, which ever is earlier, the demand as generated under the bill dated 11.07.2019 shall not be pressed into service by the respondent-Nagar Nigam.

¶10

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.8.2019 Nitin Verma

¶12

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Mohd. Anvarul Haq and 2 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Anvarul Haq and 2 Others v. State of U P and 2 Others

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

Brijesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Fast Construction Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Suman Devi Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Sunil Charora and 39 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Rajyavardhan Singh and Another Vs Government of India and 2 Others

Ansar Ali Vs Union of India and 2 Others