Dismissed

J.M.Housing Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2021WTAX/171/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition challenging a fresh recovery certificate despite pending proceedings before the Single Judge concerning the stay order and interpretation of a specific interim order dated 23.9.2019.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The matter is left open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law.

J.M.Housing Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 171 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- J.M.Housing Ltd Respondent :- Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal,Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, challenge has been raised to the recovery citation dated 8.2.2021 for Rs. 10,97,050/issued by the Assistant Collector Grade-I and Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) Khand-12 Sector-18, NOIDA for the assessment year 2011-12 (U.P.).

¶8

In brief, submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the said recovery citation is void-ab-initio inasmuch as for the assessment year 2011-12 (U.P.), the petitioner has filed Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 334 of 2019 (J.M. Housing Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner Commercial Tax) against the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal allowing the petitioner's appeal (in part). While entertaining that revision, by order dated 23.9.2019, the Single Judge had granted interim order on the following terms:-

¶9

".....3. In the meanwhile, subject to the applicant-assessee depositing 50% of the disputed tax and furnishing security for the balance amount of disputed tax for the A.Y. 2011-12 (UP) in the shape of other than cash and bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the assessing authority within a period of one month from today, further recovery proceedings initiated against the applicant-assessee shall remain stayed.

¶10

4. Any amount that may have already been deposited by the applicantassessee shall be adjusted towards the amount required to be deposited under this order..... "

¶11

Referring to the order of the Tribunal, it has been submitted that the disputed demand of tax is Rs. 1,12,34,745/-, 50% of that amount is about Rs. 56 lakh. Inasmuch as I.T.C., available to the credit of the petitioner was in excess of Rs. 1 crore, as noted in the order of the Tribunal, no cash deposit was required to be

¶12

made by the petitioner and only security was to be furnished in terms of the interim order granted by the Single Judge. That part of the order is stated to have been complied with by the petitioner by furnishing security.

¶13

In such circumstances, the issuance of fresh recovery certificate more than a year after the interim order was passed in revision has been assailed by means of the present writ petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revenue has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present writ petition in view of the fact that proceedings are still pending before this Court and the petitioner has all remedy open to him to approach the correct jurisdiction.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record inasmuch as only dispute is to the interpretation of the order of this Court dated 23.9.2019 in a proceeding that is pending before the Single Judge, we do not find any separate or fresh cause of action to have arisen to the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition.

¶16

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.7.2021 Jaswant

J.M.Housing Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.M.Housing Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax and 2 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

Dhyan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mateen and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Up and Another

Ajaj Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meenakshi and Others Vs Phool Singh and Others

Aneeta Devi and 2 Others Vs Kiran Devi and 2 Others