Dismissed

Jay Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2022WTAX/296/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging recovery citation for road tax penalty sought disposal without merits decision. Court granted liberty for representation considering pandemic benefit under Rule 24 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998, suspending coercive action pending authority order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation on penalty quantum; respondent to pass reasoned order; coercive action against penalty suspended for seven weeks pending representation decision.

Jay Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 296 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

1. Heard Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawaha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.

¶6

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned recovery citation dated 5.1.2022 of Rs.1,78,424/- issued by respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Mirzapur) against the petitioner (filed as annexure-1 to this writ petition).

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to direct the respondents' authority to take the amount is easy installments and foreclose respondents for issued the road tax against the petitioner."

¶9

3. Today, learned Standing Counsel states on instructions of the respondent no.2 that the dues for the period from 01.11.2015 to 31.07.2018 have been deposited by the petitioner in four installments on 27.06.2018, 30.07.2018, 01.09.2018 and 04.10.2018. Therefore, the demand from 01.08.2018 onwards has been pressed by means of fresh recovery certificate issued by the respondent no.2 for Rs.1,78,424/- which include penalty also.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner in breach of principles of natural justice and without extending the benefit of the proviso to Rule 24 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998

¶11

with respect to the penalty for the period covered by COVID-19 pandemic.

¶12

5. Learned Standing Counsel now submits that grievance of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent no.2 and an appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law, if the petitioner makes a representation/objection before the respondent no.2.

¶13

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation/objection before the respondent no.2 within three weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order. In the event, such a representation/objection is made before the respondent no.2, then the respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order with respect to the quantum of penalty imposed upon the petitioner in light of the provisions of Rule 24 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998. Such an order shall be passed by the respondent no.2, in accordance with law, within next four weeks after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶14

7. For a period of seven weeks or till representation/objection of the petitioner is decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery relating to penalty for the period from 01.08.2018 to 31.07.2021 in respect of vehicle in question, i.e., truck bearing registration no.UP63T 3279.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.4.2022 SK

¶16

Digitally signed by SUSHEEL KUMAR Date: 2022.04.20 15:50:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jay Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Shri Mahendra Pal Singh and 5 Others Vs Union of India and 2 Others

M/S Thakur Trainding Company Vs State Bank of India and 2 Others

Girish Chandra Yadav Vs State of U P and Another

Devendra Bahadur Khare Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Usman Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ashish Mahajan Vs Union of India and 2 Others