Disposed

Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020WRIC/3576/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a recovery citation, directing the petitioner to file objections within four weeks. Coercive action was stayed for eight weeks pending the outcome of the objection.

What did the court decide?

Stay on coercive action for eight weeks; direction to file objections against the provisional assessment order within four weeks.

Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3576 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahboob Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶6

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the recovery citation dated 8.12.2019 a sum of Rs. 207847/- issued by the respondent no. 3.

¶7

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner or do not take any further action against the petitioner till the pendency of the present writ petition.

¶8

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶9

IV. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4.

¶11

This Court vide order dated 6.2.2020 had directed learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 to seek instructions in the matter and had posted the matter for today.

¶12

When this matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 in his usual fairness informed the Court that the checking report / provisional assessment order was sent to the petitioner by ordinary post but there is nothing on record to show that the provisional assessment order was served on the petitioner. He further stated that he has supplied the copy of the checking report as well as the provisional assessment order dated 14.6.2018 to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court and in case the petitioner files his objection against the provisional assessment order before the respondent no. 4, he shall decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioner to file objection against the provisional assessment order before the respondent no. 4 within four weeks from today and in case any objection is filed against the provisional assessment order within the time indicated hereinabove along with certified copy of this order, the respondent no. 4 shall pass appropriate orders thereon within a further period of four weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶14

For a period of eight weeks from today or till the petitioner's objection filed by him against the provisional assessment order is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the amount mentioned in the impugned demand notice. In case, any objection is not filed within the period indicated hereinabove, this writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically and the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶15

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 HR

Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Pal @ Keshan Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neetu Mittal Vs Brajesh Kumar Agarwal Alias Mintu

The Deputy Chief Engineer Construction-Ii Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Dharmwati Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

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

Durga Dutt Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Shreebamdev Global Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others