Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021WRIC/456/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a royalty demand notice issued without prior opportunity of hearing. The Court set aside the notice, mandating that the authorities afford a hearing to the petitioner and pass orders within three months, without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice dated 5.12.2020 was set aside; the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing; the authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders within three months.

M/S Taru Construction Vs State of U… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 456 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Taru Construction 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. 3738/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% 3738@jk;YVh fnukad%05@12@2020 lsok esa] eS0 r: dkUlVªDlu uo] e.My fcgkj] vkbZ-oh-vkj-vkbZjksM] cjsyh ¼m0iz0½

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

d`i;k layXu lwph esa n'kkZ;h x;h jkW;YVh dh /kujkf'k #0 167740¾00 dks pSd@Mªk¶V@udn [k.Mh; dk;kZy; esa 'kh?kz tek djus dk d"V djsaA lyaXud% mijksDruqlkj

¶12

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

i=kad%

izfrfyfi%&

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Taru Construction 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

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 Economic Builders and Consultants 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