Petitioner granted 10 day’s time to submit their reply to the Notice issued by respondent: High Court of Uttarakhand.
Since only a notice of appearance was given to the petitioner, to appear before the Tehsildar in order to submit their objection or reply to the Notice for recovery, the petitioner was granted 10 days’ time from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, to approach before respondent No. 4 through any designated authority of theirs, in order to file a reply to the said Notice, and for a period of 10 days of the filing of an objection before the Tehsildar. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma in the matter of Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1546 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner has approached this court seeking for quashing of the order /Notice issued by the respondent, for direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to expeditiously and within a time-bound manner decide the Stay Application first and also the First Appeal filed by the Petitioner. In the present case, the principal challenge, which has been given by the petitioner-company, is to the Notice, which has been issued by the respondent No. 4, herein i.e. the Tehsildar, whereby the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Tehsildar, on 03.08.2021, in order to submit its reply, as against the issuance of recovery citation under Section 280 to be read with Rule 236 of the U.P.Z.A. &amp; L.R. Act, to say their part in regard to the propriety of the recovery sought to be made pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the tax assessed to be paid by the petitioner for the financial year, they had a remedy before the appellate Authority under section 51 of Uttarakhand VAT Act and under as per their pleadings that were raised in the writ petition against the assessment order and the rectification of assessment order, the petitioner had filed an appeal which was supported with the stay application and the same was pending for consideration before the Appellate authority because of the pandemic. The petitioner also submitted that they feel that on account of non-consideration of the pending Stay Application, which was preferred by them with an Appeal under Section 51 of the Act, the respondents may proceed on the basis of the impugned Notice are likely to attach the bank accounts of the petitioner-company for the recovery of the tax amount. The Addl. CSC for the State had raised an objection to the effect and stated that His argument, at this stage, would not be sustainable in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because the appeal and the stay application were yet to be considered by the competent Appellate Authority on merits. The court directed that – “since it was only a notice of appearance given to the petitioner-company, to appear before the Tehsildar in order to submit their objection or reply to the Notice for recovery, the petitioner is granted 10 days’ time from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order”. The court also directed respondent No. 3- “in case if his appellate jurisdiction has now been conferred with respondent No. 2, he would ensure to remit the records of the Appeal expeditiously before respondent No. 2, within the aforesaid period of 10 days.” Moreover, respondent No. 2 is requested to consider the Stay Application of the petitioner under Section 51 of the Act, within a period of one month thereafter and pass an appropriate order on the same exclusively in accordance with law”. Thereby the writ petition was disposed of. Click Here For The Judgement
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ PetitionNo. 15421 Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Advocates : Mr. R. Jawahar Lal Advocate along with Mr. Ramji Shrivastava Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant Add. CSC for the State of Uttarakhand Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma J. Through Hybrid Mode) The defect(s) as pointed out by the Registry of this Court this Court is inclined to ignore the same. The petitioner before this Court has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs: issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the Order Notice dated 26.07.2021 Annexure 9 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 4. a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to expeditiously and within a time bound manner decide the Stay Application first and also the First Appealfiled by the Petitioner. issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and iv) award costs of the petition to the Petitioner throughout.” In fact the principal challenge which has been given by the petitioner company is to the Notice which has been issued by the respondent No. 4 herein i.e. the Tehsildar whereby the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Tehsildar on 03.08.2021 in order to 2 submit its reply as against the issuance of recovery citation under Section 280 to be read with Rule 236 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in order to have their say with regard to the propriety of the recovery sought to be made pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended in the writ petition that as against the tax due to be paid and assessed to be paid by the petitioner company for the said financial year they had a remedy before the Appellate Authority under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act and according to their pleadings raised in the writ petition as against the assessment order and the rectification of the assessment order made by the orders dated 17.08.2020 and 15.10.2020 the petitioner company had already preferred an Appeal on 04.12.2020 which is duly supported with the Stay Application and the same is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority and it could not be considered on account of the prevailing pandemic The petitioner company is apprehending that on account of non consideration of the pending Stay Application which was preferred by them with an Appeal under Section 51 of the Act the respondents may proceed on the basis of the impugned Notice dated 26.07.2021 and are likely to attach the bank accounts of the petitioner company for the recovery of the tax amount which was assessed due to be paid by them for the year 2016 17. The learned Addl. CSC for the State had raised an objection to the effect that for the purposes of entertaining of an Appeal under Section 57 of the Act there are certain embargoes which are imposed by sub Section of Section 51 of the Act. His argument at this stage would not be sustainable in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason being that the Appeal itself and the Stay Application which has been filed in support thereto is yet to be considered by the competent Appellate Authority on merits 3 hence at this stage this Court need not to venture into the argument as extended by the learned Addl. CSC for the State under Section 51(7) of the Act and its implication because it may affect independent adjudication of Appeal and stay application filed in support thereto . Be that as it may. At this situation looking to the reliefs which have already been extracted above this writ petition would stand disposed of with the following directions: As far as the Notice dated 26.07.2021 is concerned since it was only a notice of appearance given to the petitioner company to appear before the Tehsildar in order to submit their objection or reply to the Notice for recovery the petitioner is granted 10 days’ time from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order to approach before respondent No. 4 through any designated authority of theirs in order to file a reply to the said Notice and for a period of 10 days of filing of an objection before the Tehsildar i.e. respondent No. 4 herein no coercive measures as against the said Notice would be taken against the petitioner company and the objection would be decided by respondent No. 4 on its merits. In para 43 of the writ petition the petitioner company has specifically pleaded that initially the Appellate Authority was with the respondent No. 3 at Haldwani before whom the petitioner company had preferred an Appeal under Section 57 of the Uttarakhand VAT Act along with the Stay Application which was pending consideration. But subsequently the appellate power has now been conferred upon the Additional Commissioner Appeals Commercial Tax Dehradun as such it may takes some time for the records of the Appeal which had been preferred before respondent No. 3 at Haldwani to be transferred to respondent No. 2 for consideration of the Appeal as well as the Stay Application which has been preferred by the petitioner company. In order to meet this peculiar contingencies respondent No. 3 is directed that in case if his appellate jurisdiction has now been conferred with respondent No. 2 he would ensure to remit the records of the Appeal expeditiously before respondent No. 2 within the aforesaid period of 10 days. As soon as the records of the Appeal preferred by the petitioner company under Section 51 of the Act at Haldwani is transferred by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 the respondent No. 2 is requested to consider the Stay Application of the petitioner under Section 51 of the Act within a period of one month thereafter and pass an appropriate order on the same exclusively in accordance with law. Subject to above observations the writ petition stands disposed Sharad Kumar Sharma J.) 