Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1006 (HP)

Bhakra Beas Management Board v. State of H. P.

2018-05-28

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Mr.N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, states that the FDRs, as detailed in Annexure P-7, have not been en-cashed by the respondents. If that be so, the same shall not be en-cashed by the respondents, during the pendency of this writ petitioner. However, the writ petition shall abide by the judgment of the Apex Court as directed vide judgment dated 5th August, 2014, passed by this Court in CWP No.7172 of 2010, titled as Chaman Rakesh Ajta & another vs. State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-3), which order reads as under: “The learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that the issues involved in these proceedings are also covered in a batch of matters which are pending before the apex Court and prayed that the hearing of these writ petitions be deferred and interim orders already passed in CWP No. 1852 of 2010 dated 20.7.2010 and CWP No. 492 of 2013 dated 22.1.2013, be made absolute with further direction that in case, the apex Court decision goes against the petitioners, the petitioners have to make the payment of bank guarantee amount with interest and in case the decision goes in favour of the petitioners, the State has to refund 1/3rd of the amount deposited by the petitioners in cash with interest, in terms of the interim orders, supra. Further stated that the amount of entry tax deposited by the petitioners in the cases, relating to entry tax of vehicles, the State has to refund the same with interest. 2. It is apt to reproduce interim order dated 20.7.2010, passed in CWP 1852 of 2010, relating to Entry Tax (Goods) referred to supra hereinbelow: “Final hearing was deferred since we find that very similar issue is pending before the Supreme Court. The constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Area Act, 2010 is under challenge. We find that several similar matters are pending before the Supreme Court and hence we feel it only appropriate to defer the final hearing. In SLP (c) No. 14454-14778/2008, State of Orrisa & others versus M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. & ors, the Supreme Court has passed an interim order on 3.2.2010 to the effect that the assessee will pay 1/3rd of the liability as assessed under the Act. In SLP (c) No. 14454-14778/2008, State of Orrisa & others versus M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. & ors, the Supreme Court has passed an interim order on 3.2.2010 to the effect that the assessee will pay 1/3rd of the liability as assessed under the Act. There will hence be an interim order that the petitioner need pay only 1/3rd of the assessed amount for the time being. As far as the balance 2/3rd is concerned, the assessee will furnish security. It is made clear that the amount, thus paid by the assessee, shall be treated as deposit and not as tax till the final disposal of the matter. It is also made clear that in the event of the State losing its case, it shall be liable to refund the amount with interest to be fixed at the time of final hearing. Equally, in case the assessee loses its case in the High Court, it shall be liable to pay the balance amount with interest to be fixed at the time of the final hearing. It is also made clear that this order shall be applicable in the case of the petitioner only.” 3. It is also apt to reproduce interim order dated 22.1.2013 passed in CWP No. 492 of 2013 relating to Entry Tax (Vehicles) herein:- “Notice. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. There will be a direction to register the vehicle of the petitioner on the condition that he deposits 1/3rd of the entry tax. The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle or otherwise create any encumbrance on the vehicle without the permission of the Registering Authority. The above order will be subject to the result of the writ petition.” 4. This Court has already taken note of the fact that the matter is pending before the apex Court, which involves identical issues and matters were adjourned till 12th August, 2013, in terms of order dated 12th June, 2013, passed by this Court. 5. CWP No. 7172 of 2010 was treaded as lead case by this Court in terms of order dated 13th August, 2013, whereby writ petitions were admitted to hearing and interim orders supra were made absolute. 6. 5. CWP No. 7172 of 2010 was treaded as lead case by this Court in terms of order dated 13th August, 2013, whereby writ petitions were admitted to hearing and interim orders supra were made absolute. 6. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions by providing that all the writ petitions shall abide by the judgment of the apex Court read with the interim orders, referred to above. It is made clear that the writ petitioners/writ respondents are at liberty to lay motion in terms of the apex Court judgment, if need arises. 7. Accordingly, all the writ petitions along with pending applications be consigned to records. Copy of this judgment/order be placed on each file.” 2. Petition, as prayed for, is disposed of making the directions reproduced supra applicable mutatis mutandis, insofar as applicable, to the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.