Disposed

P.S.E.B. Patiala and Ors. v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tapa and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2012CWP/7207/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the impugned order regarding provisional tax assessment. It relegated the matter to the Assessing Authority for the respondent to file objections, overriding the limitation period, while depositing the retained amount for future adjustment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter relegated to Assessing Authority for consideration of objections with liberty to file same.

P.S.E.B. Patiala and Ors. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.7207 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.7207 of 2010 Date of decision: May 15, 2012

¶5

Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tapa, District Barnala and another

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶11

Present: Mr. Manish Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the State.

¶13

Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶14

Mahesh Grover, J. (Oral)

¶15

Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 very failry states that, although, respondent No.2 has deposited 1/3^rd of the amount assessed provisionally against him, yet he under a mistaken belief took recourse to the filing of an appeal against the order of provisional assessment whereas the appropriate remedy would have been to raise objection before the Assessing Officer in terms of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act 2003. He contends that respondent No.2 may be relegated to the remedy before the Assessing Officer and be permitted to file objections.

¶16

In view of the candid and fair stand taken by the learned

¶17

CWP No.7207 of 2010

¶18

¶19

counsel for respondent No.2, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is accepted and the matter is relegated to the Assessing Authority with liberty to respondent No.2 to file his objections before him. In case, such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the Assessing Authority and disposed of in accordance with law and the question of limitation will not come in the way. The amount deposited by respondent No.2 shall be retained by the petitioners till the disposal of the objections by the Assessing Authority and in the eventuality of the final assessment being made, needless to say that the same shall be subject to adjustment.

¶20

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE

¶22

May 15, 2012 sk

P.S.E.B. Patiala and Ors. v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tapa and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.E.B. Patiala and Ors. v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tapa and Anr.

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

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Wellgrow Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. etc. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sonu Shukla Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manjeet Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Gurdev Singh Vs U.T. Adm. & Ors.

Harpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.