Allowed¶3

Sushila Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC9 Apr 2026WPMS/764/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sushila Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand and others; WPMS No.764 of 2026; Uttarakhand High Court; Pankaj Purohit, J.; decision dated 09.04.2026; recovery order dated 15.09.2025 quashed; Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) Rishikesh; respondent no.3-District Magistrate Dehradun; recovery citation; commercial tax ₹1,55,828/- recovered as land revenue; no demand notice served on petitioner; State instructions vague; representation to respondent no.2 within 15 days; decision within four weeks by speaking order after hearing; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order dated 15.09.2025 quashed; petitioner permitted to make a representation before respondent no.2-Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) within 15 days regarding the commercial tax assessed upon her, to be decided within a further period of four weeks by a speaking order after hearing the petitioner.

SL.
No
Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
ih i

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

wt Sgnatures

WPMS No.764 of 2026
Sushila Rawat
…………Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ……….Respondents
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. with Mr. B.S. Koranga,
learned B.H. for the State.
3.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the recovery order dated 15.09.2025, passed by

learned
Assistant
Regional
Transport
Officer

(Administration) Rishikesh, District-Dehradun, whereby
respondent no.3-District Magistrate, Dehradun, was
requested to issue a recovery citation to recover a tax
amount of₹1,55,828/- by way of a land revenue towards the
commercial tax.
4.
The recovery order/notice has been challenged by the
petitioner mainly on the ground that she has never been
served with any notice by respondent no.2 and straightway
without raising any demand after serving to the petitioner
the respondent no.3-District Magistrate was requested to
recover the aforesaid amount by way of land revenue by
issuance of a recovery citation.
5.
This Court vide order dated 31.03.2026 asked the
learned State counsel to get instructions that as to whether
any demand notice was served upon the petitioner or not
before sending the matter for recovery by way of land
revenue.

6.
Today the instructions has been received by learned
State counsel, the same is taken on record.

7. The instructions are very vague and it nowhere	states
that demand notice of commercial tax amounti ₹1,55,828/- was ever served upon the petitione	ng to r and
straightway recovery was initiated.
8. In such view of the matter recovery order	dated
15.09.2025 is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of. Pet shall approach the respondent no.2-Assistant Re	itioner gional
Transport Officer (Administration) by makin representation putting forward her point of view in res the commercial tax assessed upon her within a period days from today. If such a representation is moved the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 shall deci said representation within a further period of four we a speaking order and after giving hearing to the petitio	g a pect of of 15 before de the eks by ner.
(Pankaj Puroh 09.04.2026 SK	it, J.)

7.
The instructions are very vague and it nowhere

states

that demand notice of commercial tax amounti
₹1,55,828/- was ever served upon the petitione

ng to
r and

straightway recovery was initiated.

8.
In such view of the matter recovery order

dated

15.09.2025 is hereby quashed.
9.
Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of. Pet
shall approach the respondent no.2-Assistant Re

itioner
gional

Transport
Officer
(Administration)
by
makin
representation putting forward her point of view in res
the commercial tax assessed upon her within a period
days from today. If such a representation is moved
the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 shall deci
said representation within a further period of four we
a speaking order and after giving hearing to the petitio

g
a
pect of
of 15
before
de the
eks by
ner.

(Pankaj Puroh
09.04.2026
SK

it, J.)

Sushila Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kukretri Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pushpa Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Prem Ballabh Bhatt Vs Indian Red Cross Society through Its General Secretary

Madarsa Jamiya Islamiya Arabiya Faizul Uloom Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jaswinder Kaur Vs Govind Ballabh Pant Universtiy of Agriculture and Technology

Sukhjeet Kaur Vs State of Uttarakhand