Disposed

Arun Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Orissa HC9 Apr 2024WP(C)/41311/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a tax demand notice without final adjudication, directing the authority to consider specific payments made and allow the current licensee to continue running the canteen pending a final decision on the disputed liability.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction for authority to reconsider payment claims and specific performance of a response by both parties before taking final action.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.41311 of 2023

¶3

Arun Kumar Singh & another …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. M.R. Dhal, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Union of India & others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. N.K. Sahu, Advocate for O.P Nos.2 & 3

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

09.04.2024

Heard Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for opposite parties.

¶16

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned demand notice under Annexure-5 on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of Annexure-1, a license was issued in favour of petitioner No.1 and thereafter, on the strength of Annexure-2, the Power of Attorney was executed in favour of petitioner No.2 and ever since such execution in the year, 2004, petitioner No.2 runs a Canteen as against which the alleged demand notice (Annexure-5) is issued. It is claimed that petitioner No.2 has deposited Rs.8,56,049/besides Rs.10,50,000/- and as such, the alleged demand is not justified. It is claimed by Mr. Dhal that the demand on the head of water charges is to be entirely excluded from Annexure-5, which is for an amount of Rs.1,83,212/-. Referring to the affidavit towards

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

payment of Rs.10,50,000/- pursuant to the Court’s order dated 14^th March, 2024 and deposited on 29^th March, 2024, which is not in dispute, as according to Mr. Dhal, such demand needs a reconsideration.

¶20

Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that there is a dispute inter se the petitioners involving opposite party No. 1&2 with a suit pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rourkela in C.S. No. No.316 of 2023 for transfer of license, which has been denied by this Court in W.P.(C) No.26429 of 2011 by order dated 11^th July, 2022 under Annexure-B/2 to the counter affidavit. It is also submitted that the direction of this Court under Annexure-C/2 for deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- by an order dated 24^th April, 2017 in Misc. Case No.6060 of 2017 in W.P.(C) NO.6738 of 2017 was not complied with. It is alleged that suppressing the above material facts, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition and for non-payment of the outstanding dues, opposite parties have rightly issued the demand notice i.e. Annexure-5, which is, therefore, in accordance with law.

¶21

Since the matter is subjudice with regard to transfer license in C.S. No. No.316 of 2023 and the fact that Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite parties has brought to the notice of the Court with regard to a letter of petitioner No.1 addressed to the Manager. Town Ship (Admn.) ES & CA, SAIL, Rourkela with regard to the fact that he has not transferred license but executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No.2, taking cognizance of the said fact and as in the meantime, the outstanding dues is claimed against petitioner No.1, so made to reveal from Annexure5, the Court is of the considered view that petitioner No.1 should respond to it for a decision by opposite party No.3 keeping in view

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

the payment which has been received and deposited by petitioner No.2 in order facilitate a decision on future course of action.

¶24

Hence, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to consider the grievance of petitioner No.1, the original licensee and thereafter, to consider the payment to be made as against the demand i.e. Annexure-5 in the immediate presence of petitioner No.2 taking notice of the fact recent payment of Rs.10,50,000/- and other payment of Rs.8,56,049/-, which is in dispute and thereafter, to take a final decision on the same disposing of the matter at the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, to allow petitioner No.2 to continue to run the canteen in question. It is made clear that in case, any of the petitioners failed to respond to the above order, opposite party No.2 shall be at liberty to take suitable action in accordance with law.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶27

Balaram

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 10-Apr-2024 16:43:33

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Arun Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Singh v. Union of India

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

Similar cases

Prabir Kumar Harichandan Vs the State of Odisha

Bulu Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Divisional Manager,New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Nisamani Rath

The Divl. Manager, M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sumitra Sahoo

Rupali @ Rupa Ghose Vs Saraswati Jena

M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Puspanjali Das