Allowed

Lachhi Ram Dharmshala Public Trust v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2020WTAX/8/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by Lachhi Ram Dharmshala Public Trust to quash duplicate bills for house tax assessments made between 2013-14 and 2019-2020. The Court held that the bills were unsustainable as the respondent failed to issue a notice or afford an opportunity of hearing under Section 213 of the Act. The matter was remanded.

What did the court decide?

The impugned duplicate bills were quashed. The respondent is permitted to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Lachhi Ram Dharmshala Public Trust Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 8 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Lachhi Ram Dharmshala Public Trust Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vineet Sankalp

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner which claims itself to be Public Charitable Trust with the following prayer :-

¶7

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned duplicate bills (Annexure No. 13 of the writ petition) for the Assessment Year 2013-14 upto 2019-2020 and the impugned duplicate bill (Annexure No. 15 of the writ petition) for the period 2019-2020.

¶8

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 for considering the exemption of the House Tax and Annual Value of the petitioner's property which is governed by public trust under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in exercise of power u/s 221 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959.

¶9

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature as the Hon'ble Court may deem proper.

¶10

(iv) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner before us that the petitioner has been assessed by the respondent no. 3 to pay huge amount as house tax u/s 213 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') vide impugned duplicate bills without considering the fact that the petitioner being a public charitable trust is entitled to exemption from house tax u/s 221 of the Act and without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner required u/s 213 of the Act.

¶12

Sri Vineet Sankalp, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that

¶14

the impugned duplicate bills which have been raised on the basis of assessments which have been made by the respondent no. 3 without following the provisions of the Act and without issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording him any opportunity of hearing, the same cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed.

¶15

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned duplicate bills are hereby quashed.

¶16

However, this order shall not preclude the respondent no. 3 from proceeding afresh against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.1.2020 KS

Lachhi Ram Dharmshala Public Trust v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachhi Ram Dharmshala Public Trust 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S a K Overseas Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anup Shukla Vs Smt. Kirti Sharma

Dr. Sahadev Krishna Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Krishna Nand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gurjent Singh Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Smt. Vineeta Rathaur Vs Dharmendra K. Rathaur