Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Mahadev Prasad Pradhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 6886 of 2022
(M/S MAHADEV PRASAD PRADHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 30-01-2023
Shri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri V.S. Choudhary, learned P.L. for respondents/State.
Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for intervenor.
Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for intervenor.
Heard on I.A. No.3964/2022 and I.A. No.4144/2022 which are
applications by the proposed intervenor i.e. Manglani Bus Service and Shyam
Bus Service respectively.
Learned counsels for intervenors submit that on their compliant, the
proceedings were initiated by the authorities which ultimately ensued in passing
of order dated 24.08.2020 by which the petitioner herein was directed to pay the
arrears of tax as well as penalty. The said order was further ensued in issuance
of demand notice dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure P/9).
It is contended by the counsel for the intervenor that as machinery of law
was set in motion on the basis of complaint moved by intervenors they are
necessary party and, therefore, deserve to be impleaded.
Learned counsels for intervenors have placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in MP No.3224/2022 dated 15.08.2022 and it is submitted that as the
complaint moved by the intervenor was taken cognizance of and on the basis of
the complaint, the order of recovery of tax as well as imposition of penalty has
been passed against the petitioner which is being sought to be impugned in the
present petition, the proposed intervenors are necessary party as the intervenors
have right to defend the order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHAM
THAKKER
Signing time: 2/2/2023
4:59:52 PM
Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the intervenors
have approached this Court with an oblique motive they have moved
applications for intervention and in terms of the law laid down by this Court in
WP No.5095/2021 as well as WP No.21577/2022, the application for
intervention filed by them deserves to set aside. It is further contended as
intervenors are rival in trade have approached this Court with view to harass the
petitioner.
Heard the rival submission and perused the record.
The challenge in this petition is to the order which is passed by the
respondent dated 24.08.2020 by which the petitioner has been called upon to
pay the arrears of tax for the different period as detailed in the table reproduced
in the impugned order dated 24.08.2020. The order impugned is a composite
order which also includes the penalty as well. After passing of the impugned
order there is a demand notice to the petitioner which is also contained in
Annexure P/9 dated 24.08.2020. This order has been issued by the Taxation
Authority, Rewa and therefore, the validity of this order only is to be adjudged
in the present petition. The order has to be defended by the authority who has
issued the order and the petitioner is opposing the same. So far as, the
intervenors are concerned, the intervenors even assuming that they brought the
discrepancy in the notice of the respondents which ensued in passing of the
order dated 24.08.2022, the role of intervenors are now over. The reliance as
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Dharmendra Travels is
misconceived inasmuch as, there was no order of recovery of tax along with the
arrears. On the contrary, there was a dispute as regards the temporary permit
and the timings therein. Therefore, the said judgment being distinguishable on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHAM
THAKKER
Signing time: 2/2/2023
4:59:52 PM
fact is not applicable.
It appears that the intervenors in present case have filed intervention
application to settle score with the petitioner on account of business rivalry. The
imposition of tax is within the domain of State. Even if there was no complaint
by the intervenors, the State is within their right to recover tax being statutory
liability from the petitioner. If the State has exercised their right while passing
the impugned order, the intervenors have no right to seek intervention. The
intervenors have no nexus with imposition of tax upon the petitioner nor they
are remotely connected with imposition of tax. The order impugned has no
bearing in the interest of intervenor.
In view of the aforesaid, the intervention application dated 26.03.2022
and 05.11.2022 are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- each to be paid to the
petitioner.
If the cost is not deposited by the intervenors, the matter be listed under
the head of non-compliance of order passed today.
List on 02.03.2023.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Shub
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHAM
THAKKER
Signing time: 2/2/2023
4:59:52 PM
