Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 941 (ALL)

VIKAS TEXTILES TRADERS v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-04-11

S.C.AGARWAL, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2011
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Writ Petition has been filed making the following prayers : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). (ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 not to take any coercive method against the petitioner without deciding the representation of petitioner dated 24.1.2011. (iii). issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2. It appears that a checking was made in the premises of the petitioner on 19.6.2010, and theft of electricity was allegedly detected. Provisional Assessment dated 22.6.2010 (Annexure-SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit) was made. 3. Objections dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure-SA-2 to the Supplementary Affidavit) was filed by the petitioner against the said Provisional Assessment. Subsequently, the petitioner claims to have made another Representation dated 24.1.2011 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition). 4. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as mentioned above. 5. Supplementary Affidavit, as mentioned above, has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Counter-affidavit and Supplementary Counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. The petitioner has filed the Rejoinder Affidavit and Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit. 6. As per the version of the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4, the Objections dated 3.7.2010 submitted by the petitioner were disposed of by the respondent No. 3 by the order dated 8.7.2010, and the said order dated 8.7.2010 was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post on 9.7.2010. However, the petitioner has denied the receipt of the said order dated 8.7.2010. 7. It is further averred by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that a subsequent Representation dated 21.7.2010 was also disposed of by the respondent No. 3 by the order dated 24.7.2010, and the same was communicated to the petitioner by Registered Post on 24.7.2010 itself. However, the petitioner has denied the receipt of the said order dated 24.7.2010. 8. It further transpires from a perusal of the Supplementary Counter-affidavit that a Final Assessment Notice dated 9.8.2010 was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post. However, the petitioner has denied the receipt of the said order dated 24.7.2010. 8. It further transpires from a perusal of the Supplementary Counter-affidavit that a Final Assessment Notice dated 9.8.2010 was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post. In the said Notice, it was, inter alia, stated that no representation/ objections had been filed by the petitioner against the Provisional Assessment dated 22.6.2010. 9. The said Notice was followed by a Recovery Certificate sent by the respondent No. 3 to the Collector, Jyotiba Phule Nagar (Amroha) on 22.9.2010. 10. It will, thus, be noticed that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have taken contradictory stand. On the one hand, it is maintained by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the Objections as well as the Representation submitted by the petitioner were decided by the respondent No. 3 in the month of July, 2010 but while issuing Notice in the month of August, 2010, it has been stated that no objections/ representation has been received from the petitioner. 11. When the above contradictory stand was brought to the notice of Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, he has made statement that the competent authority will withdraw the Notice dated 9.8.2010 as well as the Recovery Certificate dated 22.9.2010, and thereafter, will issue a fresh final assessment order to the petitioner in regard to which the petitioner may pursue appropriate remedy as may be available to him under law. 12. In view of the statement made by Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, it is evident that no cause of action survives to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. No further orders are, therefore, required to be passed in the present Writ Petition. 13. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. —————