Disposed

Shri Shyam Manohar Dharmarth Aushdhalaya Trust v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021WTAX/47/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging tax demands and rejection of representations was disposed of. The court directed the Tax Superintendent to reconsider the petitioner pending appeals by hearing them within four weeks and restrained coercive measures during the pendency.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Tax Superintendent to decide the representation dated 18.10.2020 with opportunity of hearing within four weeks and restraining coercive measures pending the decision.

Shri Shyam Manohar Dharmarth Aushdhalaya Trust Vs State… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 47 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Shri Shyam Manohar Dharmarth Aushdhalaya Trust Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hemant Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Order on Amendment Application :-

¶6

The amendment application has been filed today seeking amendment in the relief clause to add relief (a-i) after relief (a) in the prayer part of the writ petition.

¶7

Amendment application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to amend the relief clause during the course of the day.

¶9

Order on the Order-Sheet :-

¶10

Second supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Shri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2.

¶12

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

¶13

"(a) Issue the writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 11.12.2019 as also the order rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner and the consequential notice of demand dated 09.11.2020 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly raising demand of property tax, water tax and drainage tax,

¶14

(a-i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 19.11.2018, 25.01.2020 & 18.10.2020 submitted by the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing and restrain the respondents from recovering any property taxes due from the petitioner till such a decision is taken."

¶15

At the outset, Shri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that against

¶16

the decision taken on the representation moved by the petitioner, he has an alternative remedy to file an appeal under Section 472 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959.

¶17

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a representation dated 18.10.2020 which was duly received in the office of Nagar Nigam, Bareilly on 23.10.2020 and the same is appended with the supplementary affidavit. The Tax Superintendent, without delving upon the representation filed by the petitioner, has passed a non-speaking and cryptic order imposing liability of payment of house tax to the tune of Rs.11,91,550/-.

¶18

Considering the rival submissions, there is no doubt that the U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959 provides a self contained Code and provides for appealable forum but when the authority has taken any decision in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, such order is on the face an infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner. Further any reasons, imposing liability for payment of house tax, is also missing.

¶19

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Tax Superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.10.2020 on its own merit, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

¶20

Till any final decision is taken by the Tax Superintendent, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.2.2021 VR/

Shri Shyam Manohar Dharmarth Aushdhalaya Trust v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shyam Manohar Dharmarth Aushdhalaya Trust v. State of U.P. and Another

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

M/S Ragent Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Value Plus Stores Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep Srivastava Vs State of U P and Another

M/S Ganesh Laxmi Rice Mill Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushil Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Shahid Ali and Another Vs Authorized Officer Allahabad Bank and Another