Disposed

Ghanshaym Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2025WRIC/10492/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner assessed 1% construction labour cess on his house and ordered to recover it as land revenue arrears; he sought quashing of the notice and order and waiver of interest. Interim relief granted: if petitioner deposits the cess of Rs. 20,942 within two weeks, recovery pursuant to the Recovery Certificate is stayed.

What did the court decide?

Interim: no recovery under Recovery Certificate dated 15.07.2025 if petitioner deposits Rs. 20,942 within two weeks; counter affidavit sought within four weeks.

Ghanshaym Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10492 of 2025

Ghanshaym Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Arun Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 20

¶10

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

¶13

"(i) Issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned show cause notice dated 28.12.2024 issued by the respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned Recovery order dated 24.03.2025 issued by opposite party no.2 in which an amount of Rs. 20,942 (twenty thousand nine hundred and forty nine rupees) order to recover from the petitioner, as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition."

¶15

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner constructed his residential house in the year 2023 having total area 960 sq. feet and the petitioner spent Rs. 9,50,000/- towards the said construction. The petitioner has given the details of the expenses in paragraph no.4 of the writ petition. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the construction of the said house, the Labour Enforcement Officer and the Inspector concerned visited the

¶16

WRIC No. 10492 of 2025

¶17

¶18

site on 21.10.2022 and estimated the cost of construction as Rs. 15 Lacs. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the inspection note dated 21.10.2022 as annexure no.4 to the writ petition.

¶19

It is very categorically stated on behalf of the petitioner that the house in question is in the residential use of the petitioner since 2023. He submits that in a most arbitrary manner, the petitioner was issued a showcause notice on 28.12.2024 by the office of Additional Tax Assessment Officer/Recovery Officer/Assistant Labour Officer (respondent no.2). Then again on 07.02.2025, a second show-cause notice was issued on the same subject.

¶20

In the absence of any written reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the respondent no.2 determined the cost of the construction as Rs. 20,94,170/- and accordingly imposed the labour cess @ 1%, Rs. 20,942/and directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount in the account of the Uttar Pradesh Building And Other Construction Welfare Board, Shravasti failing which the said cess shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶21

Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, on the basis of the instructions, submits that Rule 14 of the Buildings And Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1998, provides an statutory appeal against the impugned order dated 24.03.2025. He further submits that despite several opportunities afforded to the petitioner, he did not respond to the notice, in time. Therefore, in absence of any written reply from the petitioner, the respondent no.2 has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order and pursuant to the said order, the Recovery Certificate dated 15.07.2025 has been issued demanding Rs. 42,986/- + Interest as labour cess.

¶22

Confronting the above noted opposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner appeared in person before the respondent no.2 on 21.03.2025 and presented his case before the respondent no.2, even then, the impugned order has been passed on 24.03.2025 without taking into consideration the defense of the petitioner, though made orally.

¶23

WRIC No. 10492 of 2025

¶24

¶25

It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's defense has not been taken into consideration although he appeared on 21.03.2025 before the concerned authority and placed his oral submissions but without taking into consideration the legal pleas taken by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the authority de hors jurisdiction.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 28.11.2025 wherein the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is ready to deposit the cess amount i.e. Rs. 20,942/- in terms of the order dated 24.03.2025, however, he prayed for waiver of the amount of interest.

¶27

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be within two weeks, thereafter.

¶28

It is provided that in case the petitioner deposits Rs. 20,942/- in the Account No.50151688558, I.F.S.C. Code IDIB000S608 (Indian Bank), within a period of two weeks from today, no recovery pursuant to the Recovery Certificate dated 15.07.2025 shall be made.

¶29

It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the aforesaid time frame, the benefit of this order shall not be available to him.

¶30

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶31

December 9, 2025 Abhishek Gupta

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ghanshaym Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshaym Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Kisan Brick Field, Para Saray Itiyathok Gonda Thru. Proprietor Shaban Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko and 3 Others

Digitext Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Signatory,Farha Rafeeq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration Lko and 3 Others

State of U.P.through Vs Distt. Judge Barabanki

Smt. Ram Dulari and Another vs Estate of Late Puranmasi Lko. and 4 Others

Mohammad Arif and 2 Others vs Waqf Wazir Ahmad Waqf No.-7, Lucknow, through Muttawalli Ahmad Nazir Alvi and 3 Others

Nitish Tandon and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti and Others