Bhupendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 5858 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1622 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Bhupendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- M. N. Singh,Amol Ranjan
 
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

We have heard Shri Amol Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.P. Kesarwani appears for the State respondents.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad as well as recovery certificate dated 8.9.2011 to recover the penalty @ 15% for delay in submitting the certificate of the Chartered Accountant for having spent the entire maintenance amount collected under the scheme of collection and utilisation of maintenance charges dated 26.10.2006 issued under U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979. In the impugned order it is admitted that the certificate of chartered accountant was filed on a later date on 8.10.2007, (instead of 31.7.2007) and was accepted by the District Magistrate. The penalty has been imposed on the delay in exercise of the powers under the Government Order dated 20.12.2006.

This Court has examined the similar question in a batch of writ petitions with Writ Tax No. 836 of 2011 (Deepak Seth vs. STate of UP and others) as leading writ petition and held, following the judgment in Writ Petition No. 238 of 2008 (Naresh Kumar Mittal vs. State of UP and others) decided on 28.9.2010,  that there is no provision in law under which penalty or penal interest could be levied. In the judgement dated 12.7.2011 in Deepak Seth'scase it was held as follows:

"We find substance in the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners that there is no provision in the Act or in the Rules to authorise the charging of penal interest, which would, if such a provision existed, also require the executive authorities to give opportunity of hearing to a person against whom the penal interest is imposed. We also find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government Order dated 13.12.2006 could not be applied retrospectively to charge penal interest for the period which had ended on 31.7.2005."

Since the question has been decided, with the consent of parties the writ petition was heard and is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.3.2011 in so far as imposing penalty interest on the petitioner and its recovery by a recovery certificate dated 8.9.2011 are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 17.11.2011

RKP