Disposed

Nazim v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2021WTAX/90/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a tax recovery citation, the High Court, without adjudicating merits, directed the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy under Rule 22-A of the UP Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 and stayed coercive action pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Rule 22-A of the Rules, 1998 and stay coercive action for six weeks.

Nazim Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 90 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Nazim Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shujauddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Recovery CitationNo.826 (R.C.) dated 17.01.2020 issued by Tehsildar, Tehsil-Bilaspur, Rampur against the petitioner for Rs.75,324/- + others during the pendency of the instant writ petition before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury (Annexure no.6 to this writ petition)."

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased a truck bearing registration No.HR 55L 2344/2010. However, on 24.07.2018 the said vehicle was stolen, in respect of which, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No.184 of 2018 under Section 379 IPC on 05.09.2018. Information regarding theft of aforesaid vehicle was given to respondent no.4 on 18.09.2018, but respondent no.4 had issued a recovery citation dated 17.01.2020 for recovery of Rs.75324/-. Further submission is that as the vehicle was not being used by the petitioner since 2018, there was no occasion for imposing tax upon him.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 22-A of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 (in short 'Rules, 1998'). The petitioner may approach the respondent no.4, who shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶10

In view of above facts and circumstances, but without entering into merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Rule 22-A of the Rules, 1998 by moving a representation before respondent no.4 within two weeks, which shall be considered and decided by passing an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶11

For a period of six weeks from today or till the final decision on petitioner's representation, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of tax recovery letter dated 17.01.2020.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Manish Himwan

Nazim v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Gole Singh Vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Karan Singh Chauhan Vs Union of India Thru Secy. and 3 Others

M/S Solitaire Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 4 Others