Ms Shiva Toll Tax Barrier Vs State of H.P

Both these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, hence, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, have been taken up together for decision. For convenience, facts hereinafter have been referred from CWP No.2386/2013.

¶23

2. Petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to pay it an amount of ₹1,25,00,000/- due to loss allegedly suffered by it on

¶24

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶25

2

¶26

2026:HHC:6249-DB

¶27

account of closure of Toll Barriers at Bela Thakra, Near Bridge No. R.D.7910 (New) Kangra.

¶28

It was the case of the petitioner that on account of natural calamities during the year 2012-13, petitioner was prevented from collecting the normal toll at the aforesaid Toll Barrier, therefore, entitled to refund of the amount due to loss caused to it.

¶29

3. The order sheets of the case file reflect that on 15.05.2016, learned Additional Advocate General had apprised the Court about the pendency of a representation of the petitioner before the Competent Authority on the subject matter. Taking this into consideration, the Court directed the Competent Authority to decide the aforesaid representation and to report compliance. The representation was decided and rejected by the Competent Authority i.e. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, H.P. on 29.10.2016. Petitioner was not held eligible for any refund as per Section 10 of the H.P. Tolls Act, 1975.

¶30

4. When these matters were taken up today for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners apprised that order dated 29.10.2016 was further assailed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. by preferring an appeal under Section 10A of the H.P. Tolls Act, 1975. The appeal was allowed on 29.06.2017. Copy of order passed by the Appellate Authority on 29.06.2017 has

¶31

3

¶32

2026:HHC:6249-DB

¶33

been placed on record of the case. The operative portion of

¶34

the order goes as under:-

¶35

“7. In view of the above provisions the appeal is accepted and there is a need to re-determine the refund amount due to him, either by a committee to be constituted by the Administrative Secretary or as per the Standing Committee, i.e. “Departmental litigation Monitoring Committee”, and the refund as determined can be set off against appellant’s dues. With the above observation the appeal is accordingly accepted. Case file be returned & record consigned to record room.”

¶36

While accepting petitioner’s appeal, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. directed re-determination of the refund amount due to the petitioner either by the committee to be constituted by Administrative Secretary or the Standing Committee i.e. Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee with further direction that refund as determined be set off against the petitioner's dues. The order was passed with reference to Toll Barriers: Shekurpura near Kandrori Bridge, Bela Thakra and Oader ( near Suyali Dunera road) involved in these petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners also apprised that pursuant to the order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P, the petitioner represented on 19.04.2021 to the ‘Administrative Secretary’ Standing Committee -cumDepartmental Litigation Monitoring Committee, Excise and Taxation Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh requesting to take follow up action for re-determining the amount to be refunded to the petitioner. The office order

¶37

4

¶38

2026:HHC:6249-DB

¶39

issued on 15.11.2021 by the Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, H.P has also been placed on record whereby committee consisting of following officers was constituted for re-determining the refund due to the petitioner:-

¶40

“1. Jt. Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise, N.Z.Palampur- Chairman.

¶41

Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise & Excise, District Kangra- Member.

¶42

Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise & Excise, R.D. Nurpur-Member.

¶43

Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise & Excise, District Chamba, Member”

¶44

Petitioner’s grievance is that no action to its knowledge has been taken by the Committee for implementing the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. on 29.06.2017. That despite there being a favourable order for re-determination of refund due to the petitioner, requisite steps have not been taken by the respondents towards enforcement of the order.

¶45

The order directing re-determination of refund due to the petitioner was passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. on 29.06.2017. The Committee in terms of the order was constituted by the respondents almost four years later i.e. on 15.11.2021. Now more than five years have gone by. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 29.06.2017 has still not been enforced, both these writ petitions are disposed of with

¶46

5

¶47

2026:HHC:6249-DB

¶48

direction to the Competent Authority/ Duly Constituted Committee to take the follow up action and re-determine the refund amount due to the petitioner in terms of order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P on 29.06.2017. Necessary exercise be carried out and completed within eight weeks from today with respect to the Toll barriers mentioned in the order of the Financial Commissioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶49

March 07, 2026 yogesh

¶50

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Ms Shiva Toll Tax Barrier v. State of H.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Shiva Toll Tax Barrier v. State of H.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs the Hrtc and Another

Deepak Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Ms Jai Ganesh Vs State

M/S Spen Formulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Hpsebl and Others

Brij Bhushan Vs the Hrtc and Another