Allowed

Supreme Electrical Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CW/15061/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Several writ petitions challenged urban development tax demands raised on industrial plots without any assessment order. The court held the demand violated natural justice and Rule 5 of the Urban Development Tax Rules, treated the demand notices as show-cause notices, and directed the Commissioner to decide leviability of tax after hearing the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Demand notices treated as show-cause notices; petitioner to appear before the Commissioner on 16.02.2024; Commissioner to decide leviability of tax after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Supreme Electrical Private Limited Vs the… — Municipal and Town Planning | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7329/2023

¶4

Ashok Arora S/o Umrao Singh Arora, Aged About 73 Years, R/o 25, Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur - 302006.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶8

Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur.

¶10

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3612/2021

¶14

Mahendra Singhal S/o Sh. Kastur Chand, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of B-31, Arya Nagar Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur C/o M/s Kastur Chand Thekedar Plot No. 1 Road No. 1D Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Riico, Jaipur - 302013.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶18

Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Upadyay Bhawan, Lalkothi Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Commissioner.

¶19

Department Of Local Self Governance, State Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Through Its Principal Secretary.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15061/2021

(2 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

Supreme Electrical Private Limited, Through Its Director Shridhar Biyani (Din No.02800928) S/o Shri Ram Gopal Biyani, Aged About 40 Years, Registered Address F-409 B, Road No. 14, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, C/o. F-696, Road No. 9F2, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur (North)

¶26

----Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶29

Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Upadyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶30

Department Of Local Self Government, Through Its Principal Secretary, State Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶31

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation, Jaipur.

¶32

----Respondents

¶33

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3677/2022

¶34

M/s Agarwal Marbles India Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 6, 7 Hanuman Vatika Chitrakoot Lane, Ajmer Road, Jaipur And Place Of Business At Plot No. 118, B-119 And 120, Road No. 9 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013 (Rajasthan) Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory, Shri Ashwani Gupta.

¶35

----Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Pr. Secretary.

¶38

Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶39

Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.

¶40

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.

¶41

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing

(3 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

Director.

----Respondents

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3679/2022

¶48

M/s Agarwal Marbles India Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 6, 7 Hanuman Vatika Chitrakoot Lane, Ajmer Road, Jaipur And Place Of Business At Plot No. A-118, B-119 And 120, Road No. 9 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013 (Rajasthan) Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory, Shri Ashwani Gupta.

¶49

----Petitioner

¶50

Versus

¶51

State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Pr. Secretary.

¶52

Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶53

Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.

¶54

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.

¶55

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶56

----Respondents

¶57

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3688/2022

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Principal Secretary.

¶62

Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal

(4 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶67

Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.

¶68

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.

¶69

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶70

----Respondents

¶71

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3698/2022

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Principal Secretary.

¶76

Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶77

Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.

¶78

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.

¶79

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶80

----Respondents

¶81

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3755/2022

(5 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

(Rajasthan) Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory, Shri Ashwani Gupta.

¶87

----Petitioner

¶88

Versus

¶89

State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Pr. Secretary.

¶90

Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶91

Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.

¶92

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.

¶93

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶94

----Respondents

¶95

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17727/2022

¶96

Bluma Enterprises Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At B-192, Road 9F Vkia Jaipur-302013 Through Its Authorized Representative Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Ram Narain Gupta.

¶97

----Petitioner

¶98

Versus

¶99

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶100

Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner.

¶101

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur.

¶102

----Respondents

¶103

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4954/2023

¶104

Advance Strips Pvt. Limited, E-774, Road No. -13 Vkia Jaipur302013 Through Its Authorized Representative Yogendra

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

(6 of 15)

Khandelwal.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶112

Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Raod, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner.

¶113

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur.

¶114

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico)), Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

¶115

----Respondents

¶116

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5103/2023

¶117

Chandra Khuteta W/o Girish Chandra Khuteta, Aged About 72 Years, R/o E-15, Gokhale Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001

¶118

----Petitioner

¶119

Versus

¶120

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶121

Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner.

¶122

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur.

¶123

Rajasthan State Industiral Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶124

----Respondents

¶125

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5114/2023

¶126

Sampat Lal Jain S/o Late Shri Harak Chand Jain, Aged About 81 Years, Proprietor Of Shree Jain Udhyog Having Address At C- 950/b, Road No. 14, Vkia Area 302013

----Petitioner

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

(7 of 15)

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶133

Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner.

¶134

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur.

¶135

Rajasthan State Industiral Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶136

----Respondents

¶137

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5419/2023

¶138

Rakesh Gupta S/o Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Aged About 62 Years, Having Principal Place Of Business At F-253-B, V.k.i. Road No. 12, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302013

¶139

----Petitioner

¶140

Versus

¶141

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶142

Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Upadyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶143

Department Of Local Self Government, Through Its Principal Secretary, State Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶144

Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation, Jaipur.

¶145

----Respondents

¶146

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9071/2023

¶147

Paliwal Exculsive Marble Llp, 72, Road No. 1C, Vkia, Jaipur302013 Through Its Authorized Representative Kailash Chand Kabra.

¶148

----Petitioner

¶149

Versus

¶150

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self

(8 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶155

Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner.

¶156

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur.

¶157

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶158

----Respondents

¶159

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9073/2023

¶160

Perfect Capfin Llp, A-85 (A), Road No. 9, Vkia, Jaipur-302013 Through Its Authorized Representative Keshav Kabra.

¶161

----Petitioner

¶162

Versus

¶163

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶164

Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner.

¶165

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur.

¶166

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing Director.

¶167

----Respondents

¶168

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3764/2021

¶169

Major Life Style Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At F-202-204, Riico Industrial Area Mansarovar Jaipur Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Anoop Saraf.

----Petitioner

Versus

(9 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.

¶176

Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner.

¶177

Deputy Commissioner, Mansarovar Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Sector 9 Gokhale Marg, Shiprapath Road, Mansarovar Jaipur.

¶178

Deputy Commissioner, Sanganer Zone, Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Nagar Nigam Road, Raigarh Chotta Mohalla, Dada Gurudev Nagar, Sanganer Jaipur,

¶179

----Respondents

¶180

Connected With

¶181

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1387/2022

¶182

United Felts And Carpets Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 128, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Authorized Representative Ritesh Mamodia S/o Sh. Vijender Mamodia, Aged 45 Years.

¶183

----Petitioner

¶184

Versus

¶185

Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur.

¶186

Commissioner, Jaipur Nagar Nigam Greater, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶187

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, State Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶188

The Director, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Rajmahal Residency Area, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶189

----Respondents

¶190

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak & Mr. Arnav Singh Mr. Aditya Vijay Mr. Kritesh Oswal

¶191

[CW-7329/2023]

¶192

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (10 of 15) [CW-7329/2023] Mr. Divay Prakash Modi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with Mr. Yashodhar Pandey Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Lodha & Mr. Ankit Rathore Mr. Ishan Kumawat Mr. Naval Kishore Saini on behalf of Mr. S.N. Kumawat Mr. Pranjul Chopra with Mr. Ankur Jain Ms. Anamika Arora for RIICO

¶193

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶194

Judgment

¶195

09/02/2024

¶196

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL)

¶197

Reportable

¶198

These petitions are being decided by a common order as the issue and facts involved are similar. The facts are being considered from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3679/2022.

¶199

The petitioner was allotted plot in RIICO Industrial Area Vishwakarma, Jaipur by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (for short, ‘RIICO’).

¶200

Inter alia grievance raised in the petition is that demand for Urban Development Tax (for short ‘tax’) under Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short ‘Act’) has been created without passing an order.

¶201

The petitioners claimed that the property being situated in industrial area is not exigible to tax. Learned counsel appearing for the RIICO appearing has supported the stand taken by the petitioner.

(11 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

The Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 defends the impugned demand submits that there is a scheme of selfassessment of tax and the petitioner failed to deposit the due tax. The argument is that demand notice contains calculation of tax.

¶206

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Rule 5 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Urban Development Tax)

¶207

Rules, 2016 (for short ‘Rule’) is reproduced herebelow:-

¶208

(1) The Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality shall issue a public notice in Form-II within fifteen days from the date of order issued by the State Government under Section 102 of the Act, calling upon the owners/occupiers of building or land or both, to submit self-assessment returns in FormIII. Such notice shall be also affixed on the notice board of the office of the Municipality. (2) The person primarily liable to pay tax shall assess the tax payable by him and deposit the tax in bank account of the Municipality or in the office of the Municipality. After depositing the tax, self-assessment return in Form-III duly and correctly filed in, along with a copy of challan or receipt of tax deposited, shall be submitted by him in the office of Municipality, in person or by post or by transmitting them through online e- governance system.

¶209

(3) If the owner/occupier does not submit correct self-assessment return or fails to submit the selfassessment return as required under sub-rule (1) and (2) above, the Chief Municipal Officer/ Assessor or the Officer authorized in this behalf, as the case may be, may-

¶210

(a) enter upon or into, inspect and measure any building or land or both;

¶211

(b) make enquiries from the people living in the neighborhood and examine the previous record of the Municipality or other local authority in relation to such building or land or both, if necessary; and

¶212

(c) assess the tax and recover the same from the defaulter. (4) Five percent cases of self assessment returns of tax shall be secrutinised/examined by the Chief Municipal Officer, Assessor or the Officer authorized by the State Government.

¶213

As per rule 5(1), the Chief Municipal Officer has to issue a

¶214

public notice within fifteen days of the issuance of order by the State Government under Section 102 of the Act for submission of self-assessment return by the owners/occupiers of the building or

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

(12 of 15)

land or both. The assessee liable to pay tax under Rule 5(2) shall deposit it in the Bank account of the Municipality or in its office and shall submit in the office of Municipality either online or in person or through post self-assessment return along with proof of deposit of tax. Failure of the owner/occupier to file selfassessment return or submission of incorrect return is dealt under Rule 5(3). The Chief Municipal Officer/Assessor may inspect the building or land for measurements; make enquiries from the neighbourhood or examine the previous record of municipality or local authority or both if necessary; assess the tax and recover it. Rule 5(4), provides that five per cent cases of self-assessment shall be taken up in scrutiny for examination. 9. As per the case set up the petitioner had deposited service charges with RIICO claiming that the property is not exigible to tax under the Act. As per rule 5(3), the Chief Municipal Officer/Assessor had to assess the tax and recover the same. 10. From the pleadings, it is forthcoming that there is no order assessing the tax. In other words, a liability has been calculated without associating the petitioner. Whereas Rule 5(3) provides that the Assessing Officer has to assess the tax, thereby the petitioner should be granted opportunity of hearing to put forth the version as liability of tax or raising objections to quantification. 11. Assuming the calculation sheet-cum-demand notice is treated to be an order, it is violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioners were not provided an opportunity to put forth the stand taken here in the petition.

¶219

There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that opportunity of hearing before making the decision is the

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

(13 of 15)

requirement of the principles of natural justice. The principle has been extended not only to quasi-judicial authorities but to the administrative actions where the culmination of proceeding result in civil consequences. It would be appropriate to quote the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Gauhati And Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 . The relevant para is quoted below:-

¶224

“From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the Court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. It was, thus, observed in A.K. Kraipak’s case (supra) that if the purpose of rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how these rules should not be made available to administrative inquiries. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.[13] also the application of principle of natural justice was extended to the administrative action of the State and its authorities. It is, thus, clear that before taking an action, service of notice and giving of hearing to the noticee is required. In Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills & Anr.[14], this aspect was explained in the following manner:

(14 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

“3. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that principles of natural justice were satisfied before taking action under Section 29, assuming that it was necessary to do so. Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a straight-jacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one factsituation to another. All that has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue before one is put on notice that the consequence would follow if he would not take care of the lapse, because of which the action as made known is contemplated. No particular form of notice is the demand of law: All will depend on facts and circumstances of the case.” In the case of East India Commercial Company Ltd., Calcutta & Anr. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta[15], this Court held that whether the statute provides for notice or not, it is incumbent upon the quasijudicial authority to issue a notice to the concerned persons disclosing the circumstances under which proceedings are sought to be initiated against them, failing which the conclusion would be that principle of natural justice are violated. To the same effect are the following judgments: a) U.O.I. & Ors. v. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.[16]

¶229

b) Morarji Goculdas B&W Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. U.O.I. & Ors.[17]

¶230

c) Metal Forgings & Anr. v. U.O.I. & Ors.[18] d) U.O.I. & Ors. v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. & Anr.[19] Therefore, we are inclined to hold that there was requirement of issuance of show-cause notice by the Deputy Commissioner before passing the order of recovery, irrespective of the fact whether

(15 of 15)

[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]

[CW-7329/2023]

Section 11A of the Act is attracted in the instant case or not.”

¶235

In spite of alternative remedy, the writ jurisdiction is being exercised taking in account that the impugned demand is in violation of principles of natural justice and is not in complaince with procedure prescribed in Rule 5. The case falls within the exceptions carved out by Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool

¶236

Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) SCC 1.

¶237

The writ petitions are disposed of with the directions that the demand notice shall be considered to be show-cause notice (for short ‘SCN’).

¶238

Let petitioner appear in the office of Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation concerned on 16.02.2024 at 11:00 AM for filing response to the SCN. Thereafter, Commissioner shall decide the issue of leviability of tax in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶239

The affected parties shall be at liberty to move an application before the Commissioner for granting an opportunity of hearing. 17. The writ petitions are allowed.

¶240

Needless to say that petitioners shall be at liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decisions.

¶241

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶242

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶243

LAKSHYA/CHANDAN/94-108

¶244

Whether Reportable

¶245

Yes/No

Supreme Electrical Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supreme Electrical Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Jain Legal Heir of Late Shri Kailash Chand Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Jagdish Parasad Vishnu Kum Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Madhu Biyani Vs Income Tax Officer

Bluma Enterprises Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Misro Devi Andors Vs State of Raj and Anr.

M/S Agarwal Marbles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan