Dismissed

Satyadev Nagaish @ S.D. Nagaich v. the Municipal Commissioner and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2021WTAX/73/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash demand notices and the subsequent order of tax recovery regarding a residential property. The court observed the existence of an alternative remedy under the cited Act and noted disputed questions of fact, declining to exercise writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any affirmative relief being granted.

Satyadev Nagaish @ S.D. Nagaich Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 73 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Satyadev Nagaish @ S.D. Nagaich Respondent :- The Municipal Commissioner And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- Hemant Kumar

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned demand notice/bill dated 16.04.2020 of property I.D. no.2533 and demand notice/bill dated 16.04.2020 of property I.D. No.2527 with more than 12 % interest of same residential house as well as impugned order dated 25.11.2020 issued by the respondent no.2 i.e. Tax Superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents not to realize the amount mention in the impugned order dated 25.11.2020 passed by respondent no.2 i.e. Tax Superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly under Section 506 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959.”

¶9

It transpires that petitioner has moved an application with respect to quashing of I.D. No.002527 by contending that same is not being used for commercial purpose. The said application has been rejected by the respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 25.11.2020.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 472 of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, hence, this petition may not be entertained.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid contention.

¶12

In view of availability of an alternative remedy and since highly dispute questions of fact are involved, we are not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶13

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 29.1.2021 Manish Himwan

Satyadev Nagaish @ S.D. Nagaich v. the Municipal Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyadev Nagaish @ S.D. Nagaich v. the Municipal Commissioner and Another

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

Raja Ram Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mam Chandra Goel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt.Soniya Malhotra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sri Harihar Prasad Vs Union of India and 2 Others

M/S L.H. Sugar Factories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

M/S L.H. Sugar Factories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.