Disposed

Jai Durga Stone Mills v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Transport Secretariat Complex

Uttarakhand HC11 Nov 2021WPMS/1081/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of writ petitions challenging an order imposing a tax deposit requirement and penalty. The court dismissed the challenge to the tax deposit but granted liberty for an appeal against the penalty. A stay on coercive action was granted for six months or until the appeal is decided.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file an appeal against the penalty; stay on coercive action for six months or until appeal decision.

Jai Durga Stone Mills Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1081 of 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Jai Durga Stone Mills …Petitioner

¶8

AND:

¶9

State of Uttarakhand

¶10

through Secretary Transport

¶11

Secretariat Complex and others ...Respondents

¶12

WITH

¶13

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1406 of 2018

¶14

Vinod Kumar Bansal …Petitioner

¶15

(By Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate) AND:

¶16

State of Uttarakhand

¶17

through Secretary Transport

¶18

Secretariat Complex and others ...Respondents (Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State)

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Haridwar whereby he was asked to deposit a sum of ` 74,750/- alongwith a penalty of equal amount within one week.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised the Court that the amount of tax has been deposited by the petitioner and petitioner is challenging the impugned order only to the extent that it has imposed penalty.

¶22

¶23

3. Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1404 of 2018. Based on the said order, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since petitioner has alternative remedy of filing an Appeal against the order impugned in the writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appeal and the Competent Authority be directed to take decision on petitioner’s appeal on merit within some stipulated time.

¶25

5. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an Appeal against the impugned order before the Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand. If petitioner files an appeal within three weeks from today, the same shall be decided on merit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.

¶26

6. Since this Court has not considered the challenge thrown in the writ petition on merits, therefore, petitioner shall be at liberty to reapproach this Court, if need be.

¶27

7. No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order for a period of six months or till decision in his appeal, whichever is earlier.

¶28

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶29

Shubham

Jai Durga Stone Mills v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Transport Secretariat Complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Durga Stone Mills v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Transport Secretariat Complex

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

Tulsi Kumar Goyal Vs Union of Inida

Radhey Shyam Goyal Vs Union of India

Heera Singh Rana Vs Gaurav Chatwal

Dev Kumari Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Kumar Tiwari Vs Yogendra Sharma

Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. Vs Union of India