Quashed

M/S Economic Builders and Consultants v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021WRIC/453/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a demand notice issued by the State for royalty recovery due in 2001-2004, directing the authorities to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing before passing an appropriate order.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice is set aside, and the petitioner is directed to be given an opportunity of hearing within three months.

M/S Economic Builders and Consultants… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 453 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Economic Builders And Consultants Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Exception is taken to the demand notice no. 3726/Royalty dated 5.12.2020, which is reproduced for ready reference:

¶7

dk;kZy; vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk izkUrh; [k.M] yks0fu0fo0] cjsyh

¶8

ia=kd% 3726@jk;YVh fnukad% 05@12@2020 lsok esa]

¶9

eS0 bdksukWfed fcYMlZ ,.M dUlYVsUV] 79 e.My fcgkj]vkbZ-ch-vkj-vkbZ- jksM] cjsyh ¼m0iz0½

¶10

fo"k;% Hkkjr ds fu;U=d egkys[kk ijh{kd ds 31 ekpZ 2004 dks lekIr gq, o"kZ ds fy, izfrosnu ¼jktLo izkfIr;ka½ esa mYysf[kr izLrj la[;k& 6-2-16 ds vUrxZr o"kZ 2000&2001 ls 2002&03 esa fd;s x;s fcyksa ds Hkqxrkuksa ls jkW;YVh dh dVkSrh u fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA

¶11

laUnHkZ% 'kklu dk i=kad 155¼1½@23&9&2020&05 ,0vkbZ0vkj0 @2018 fnukad 12-03-2020] izeq[k vfHk;Urk dk i=kad 67 ys[kk¼'kk½@109ys[kk @jkW;YVh ¼jktLo izkfIr;ka½&2003&04@2018&19 y[kuÅ fnukad 19-03-2020 ,oa eq[; vfHk;Urk dk i=kad 1058@ys[kk lk0@20

¶12

fnukad 20-03-2020 ,oa 1102@ys[kk lk0@20 fnukad 19-05-2020A

¶13

mijksDr fo"k;d lUnfHkZr i=ksa ds dze esa voxr djkuk gs fd vkidh QeZ ds uke xfBr vuqcU/kksa ds lkis{k bl [k.M }kjk vkidks tks Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS] muds ns;dksa ls jkW;YVh dh dVkSrh Hkh dh tkuh FkhA Hkkjr ds fu;U=d egkys[kk ijh{kd ds 31 ekpZ 2004 ds vkWfMV esa feV~Vh ,oa iRFkj ds dk;Z ij jkW;YVh fooj.k rFkk tek dh tkus okyh /kujkf'k dh lwph layXu gSA

¶14

d`i;k layXu lwph esa n'kkZ;h x;h jkW;YVh dh /kujkf'k #0 71827¾00 dks pSd@Mªk¶V@udn [k.Mh; dk;kZy; esa 'kh?kz tek djus dk d"V djsaA lyaXud% mijksDruqlkj

¶15

¼gjca'k flag½ vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk izkUrh; [k.M] yks0fu0fo0] cjsyh fnukad% i=kad% izfrfyfi%&

¶16

¶17

1- v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] cjsyh o`r] yks0fu0fo0] cjsyh dks lwpukFkZ izsf"krA 2- vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk] fuekZ.k [k.M ¼Hkou½@fuekZ.k [k.M&1 @fu0[ka0&2¼iz0i0½@fo|qr ;kafU=d [k.M@jk0ekxZ fu0[k.M] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx cjsyh dks bl vk'k; ls izsf"kr fd ;fn mDr QeZ@Bsdsnkj vkids ;gka dk;Z dj djk gks rks mlds ns;dksa ls ;k vU; fdlh Hkqxrkuksa ls jkW;YVh dh dVkSrh dj bl [k.M dks lwfpr djus dk d"V djsaA

¶18

vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk izkUrh; [k.M] yks0fu0fo0] cjsyh

¶19

Evident it is from the impugned notice that a recovery towards royalty which was due in 2001-2002, 2002-2003 is directed to be recovered on the basis of the audit report given by the Controller and Auditor General of India dated 31.3.2004.

¶20

Exception is taken on ground that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before issuance of demand notice.

¶21

In the instructions sought from the State the issuance of demand notice is not disputed and it is stated that in given facts there is no need for affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶22

Trite it is that in the case of civil consequence as in the present one, the incumbent is entitled for proper opportunity of hearing. In the case at hand and as admitted by the respondent that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to set aside the demand notice and direct the Authorities to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Let the same be done within three months from the date of communicate of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶23

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the matter.

¶24

Petition stands disposed of finally in above terms. Order Date :- 8.2.2021 A. V. Singh

¶25

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Sanjay Yadav, J.)

M/S Economic Builders and Consultants v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Economic Builders and Consultants 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

Kapil Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Shankar Vs Tehsildar/Naib Tasildar Hasayan and 2 Others

Bijay Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Taru Construction Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kiran Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others