Disposed

S.J.P. Infracon Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020WRIC/21251/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a demand order for welfare cess, alleging lack of notice and hearing. Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner leave to apply for recall of the order as ex parte and staying recovery proceedings temporarily contingent on such an application.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to apply for recall of the order dated 3.2.2018 as ex parte; recovery proceedings stayed pending such application.

S.J.P. Infracon Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21251 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- S.J.P. Infracon Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 3.2.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 - Deputy Labour Commissioner, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, creating a demand of Rs. 5,64,32,069/- together with interest payable on the demand raised under Rules 5 & 7 of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1988.

¶6

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prior to issuance of the aforesaid order, no notice had been issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing had been granted before that demand came to be created. The knowledge of the order is stated to have been gained by the petitioner upon recovery proceedings being initiated.

¶7

Moreover, it has been submitted that the petitioner had already deposited sum of Rs. 2,83,73,400/- for a period 31.3.2014 to 15.9.2020 of which adjustment has not been made in the impugned order. Also, the computation made is disputed.

¶8

While the issues on merits may not arise for consideration in the proceedings for judicial review, at the same time, there appears to be strength in the submission being advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶9

the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order came to be passed.

¶10

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage.

¶11

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of , leaving it open to the petitioner to apply for recall of the order dated 3.2.2018 on the ground of it being wholly exparte as that application may remain maintainable before the authority if the fact pleading of the petitioner is found to be correct with respect to non issue of notice before the order came to be passed. If such application to recall the order dated 3.2.2018 is filed with period of two weeks from today along with a copy of this order before the respondent no.3, the said authority shall consider that application within a period of one month therefrom. For a period up to 31.1.2021, in the event of such compliance being made by the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 3.2.2018, the recovery proceedings may remain in abeyance till 31.1.2021 and shall be abide by the orders passed by the said authority in terms of this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 Prakhar

¶13

Digitally signed by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh Date: 2020.12.17 10:30:08 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

S.J.P. Infracon Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.J.P. Infracon Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tripurari Shukla, Fair Price Shop Dealer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Onkar Nath and 2 Others Vs Additional District Magistrate/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and 25 Others

Raju and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sri Prafull Saraswat Vs Sri Manish Singh and 18 Others

Saurabh Mishra and Another Vs the Settlement Officer Consolidation and 15 Others

Rambujh Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation and 11 Others