Rajasthan High Court
Paliwal Exculsive Marble Llp vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 February, 2024
Author: Shubha Mehta
Bench: Shubha Mehta
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7329/2023
Ashok Arora S/o Umrao Singh Arora, Aged About 73 Years, R/o
25, Bhagat Vatika, Civil Lines, Jaipur - 302006.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.
2. Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Commissioner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3612/2021
Mahendra Singhal S/o Sh. Kastur Chand, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of B-31, Arya Nagar Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur C/o M/s
Kastur Chand Thekedar Plot No. 1 Road No. 1D Vishwakarma
Industrial Area, Riico, Jaipur - 302013.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal
Upadyay Bhawan, Lalkothi Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Through Its Commissioner.
3. Department Of Local Self Governance, State Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Through Its Principal
Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15061/2021
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (2 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
Supreme Electrical Private Limited, Through Its Director Shridhar
Biyani (Din No.02800928) S/o Shri Ram Gopal Biyani, Aged
About 40 Years, Registered Address F-409 B, Road No. 14,
Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, C/o. F-696, Road No. 9F2,
Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur (North)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Through Its Secretary,
Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Upadyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk
Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Department Of Local Self Government, Through Its
Principal Secretary, State Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3677/2022
M/s Agarwal Marbles India Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office
At Plot No. 6, 7 Hanuman Vatika Chitrakoot Lane, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur And Place Of Business At Plot No. 118, B-119 And 120,
Road No. 9 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013
(Rajasthan) Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory, Shri
Ashwani Gupta.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Pr. Secretary.
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal
Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through
Its Chief Executive Officer.
3. Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (3 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3679/2022
M/s Agarwal Marbles India Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office
At Plot No. 6, 7 Hanuman Vatika Chitrakoot Lane, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur And Place Of Business At Plot No. A-118, B-119 And 120,
Road No. 9 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013
(Rajasthan) Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory, Shri
Ashwani Gupta.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Pr. Secretary.
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal
Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through
Its Chief Executive Officer.
3. Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3688/2022
M/s Agarwal Marbles India Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office
At Plot No. 6, 7 Hanuman Vatika Chitrakoot Lane, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur And Place Of Business At Plot No. A-118, B-119 And 120,
Road No. 9 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013
(Rajasthan) Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory, Shri
Ashwani Gupta.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Principal
Secretary.
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (4 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through
Its Chief Executive Officer.
3. Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3698/2022
M/s Agarwal Marbles India Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office
At Plot No. 6, 7 Hanuman Vatika Chitrakoot Lane, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur And Place Of Business At Plot No. 118, B-119 And 120,
Road No. 9 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013
(Rajasthan) Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory, Shri
Ashwani Gupta.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Principal
Secretary.
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal
Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through
Its Chief Executive Officer.
3. Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3755/2022
M/s Agarwal Marbles India Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office
At Plot No. 6, 7 Hanuman Vatika Chitrakoot Lane, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur And Place Of Business At Plot No. A-118, B-119 And 120,
Road No. 9 Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur 302013
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (5 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
(Rajasthan) Through Its Director And Authorized Signatory, Shri
Ashwani Gupta.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government, Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Through Pr. Secretary.
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, Pandit Deendayal
Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through
Its Chief Executive Officer.
3. Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation- Greater, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Municipal
Corporation, Jaipur Greater, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17727/2022
Bluma Enterprises Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office
At B-192, Road 9F Vkia Jaipur-302013 Through Its Authorized
Representative Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Ram Narain
Gupta.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak,
Jaipur.
2. Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Commissioner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4954/2023
Advance Strips Pvt. Limited, E-774, Road No. -13 Vkia Jaipur-
302013 Through Its Authorized Representative Yogendra
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (6 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
Khandelwal.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Local Self
Government, Government Of Rajasthan G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.
2. Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Raod, Jaipur Through Its
Commissioner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico)), Jaipur Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5103/2023
Chandra Khuteta W/o Girish Chandra Khuteta, Aged About 72
Years, R/o E-15, Gokhale Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.
2. Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Commissioner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan State Industiral Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5114/2023
Sampat Lal Jain S/o Late Shri Harak Chand Jain, Aged About 81
Years, Proprietor Of Shree Jain Udhyog Having Address At C-
950/b, Road No. 14, Vkia Area 302013
----Petitioner
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (7 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.
2. Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Commissioner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan State Industiral Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5419/2023
Rakesh Gupta S/o Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Aged About 62 Years,
Having Principal Place Of Business At F-253-B, V.k.i. Road No.
12, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302013
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Through Its Secretary,
Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Upadyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk
Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Department Of Local Self Government, Through Its
Principal Secretary, State Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9071/2023
Paliwal Exculsive Marble Llp, 72, Road No. 1C, Vkia, Jaipur-
302013 Through Its Authorized Representative Kailash Chand
Kabra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (8 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak,
Jaipur.
2. Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Commissioner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9073/2023
Perfect Capfin Llp, A-85 (A), Road No. 9, Vkia, Jaipur-302013
Through Its Authorized Representative Keshav Kabra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak,
Jaipur.
2. Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Commissioner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Jaipur, Through Its Managing
Director.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3764/2021
Major Life Style Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At
F-202-204, Riico Industrial Area Mansarovar Jaipur Through Its
Authorised Signatory Mr. Anoop Saraf.
----Petitioner
Versus
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (9 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Government, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme Near Civil Line Phatak,
Jaipur.
2. Nagar Nigam Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its
Commissioner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Mansarovar Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater Jaipur, Sector 9 Gokhale Marg, Shiprapath Road,
Mansarovar Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Sanganer Zone, Nagar Nigam
Greater Jaipur, Nagar Nigam Road, Raigarh Chotta
Mohalla, Dada Gurudev Nagar, Sanganer Jaipur,
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1387/2022
United Felts And Carpets Private Limited, Having Its Registered
Office At Plot No. 128, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, Through Its Authorized Representative Ritesh
Mamodia S/o Sh. Vijender Mamodia, Aged 45 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Deputy Commissioner, Murlipura Zone, Jaipur Nagar
Nigam Greater, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Jaipur Nagar Nigam Greater, Lal Kothi,
Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Government, Government Of Rajasthan, State
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Director, Directorate Of Local Bodies, Rajmahal
Residency Area, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with
Ms. Jaya P. Pathak &
Mr. Arnav Singh
Mr. Aditya Vijay
Mr. Kritesh Oswal
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (10 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
Mr. Divay Prakash Modi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with
Mr. Yashodhar Pandey
Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Jai Lodha &
Mr. Ankit Rathore
Mr. Ishan Kumawat
Mr. Naval Kishore Saini on behalf of
Mr. S.N. Kumawat
Mr. Pranjul Chopra with
Mr. Ankur Jain
Ms. Anamika Arora for RIICO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Judgment
09/02/2024
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL)
Reportable
1. These petitions are being decided by a common order as the
issue and facts involved are similar. The facts are being considered
from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3679/2022.
2. The petitioner was allotted plot in RIICO Industrial Area
Vishwakarma, Jaipur by Rajasthan State Industrial Development
and Investment Corporation (for short, 'RIICO').
3. Inter alia grievance raised in the petition is that demand for
Urban Development Tax (for short 'tax') under Rajasthan
Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short 'Act') has been created without
passing an order.
4. The petitioners claimed that the property being situated in
industrial area is not exigible to tax. Learned counsel appearing
for the RIICO appearing has supported the stand taken by the
petitioner.
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (11 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
5. The Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 defends the
impugned demand submits that there is a scheme of self-
assessment of tax and the petitioner failed to deposit the due tax.
The argument is that demand notice contains calculation of tax.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Rule 5 of Rajasthan Municipalities (Urban Development Tax)
Rules, 2016 (for short 'Rule') is reproduced herebelow:-
(1) The Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality
shall issue a public notice in Form-II within fifteen
days from the date of order issued by the State
Government under Section 102 of the Act, calling
upon the owners/occupiers of building or land or
both, to submit self-assessment returns in Form-
III. Such notice shall be also affixed on the notice
board of the office of the Municipality.
(2) The person primarily liable to pay tax shall
assess the tax payable by him and deposit the
tax in bank account of the Municipality or in the
office of the Municipality. After depositing the tax,
self-assessment return in Form-III duly and
correctly filed in, along with a copy of challan or
receipt of tax deposited, shall be submitted by
him in the office of Municipality, in person or by
post or by transmitting them through online e-
governance system.
(3) If the owner/occupier does not submit correct
self-assessment return or fails to submit the self-
assessment return as required under sub-rule (1)
and (2) above, the Chief Municipal Officer/
Assessor or the Officer authorized in this behalf,
as the case may be, may-
(a) enter upon or into, inspect and
measure any building or land or both;
(b) make enquiries from the people living
in the neighborhood and examine the previous
record of the Municipality or other local authority
in relation to such building or land or both, if
necessary; and
(c) assess the tax and recover the same
from the defaulter.
(4) Five percent cases of self assessment returns
of tax shall be secrutinised/examined by the
Chief Municipal Officer, Assessor or the Officer
authorized by the State Government.
8. As per rule 5(1), the Chief Municipal Officer has to issue a
public notice within fifteen days of the issuance of order by the
State Government under Section 102 of the Act for submission of
self-assessment return by the owners/occupiers of the building or
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (12 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
land or both. The assessee liable to pay tax under Rule 5(2) shall
deposit it in the Bank account of the Municipality or in its office
and shall submit in the office of Municipality either online or in
person or through post self-assessment return along with proof of
deposit of tax. Failure of the owner/occupier to file self-
assessment return or submission of incorrect return is dealt under
Rule 5(3). The Chief Municipal Officer/Assessor may inspect the
building or land for measurements; make enquiries from the
neighbourhood or examine the previous record of municipality or
local authority or both if necessary; assess the tax and recover it.
Rule 5(4), provides that five per cent cases of self-assessment
shall be taken up in scrutiny for examination.
9. As per the case set up the petitioner had deposited service
charges with RIICO claiming that the property is not exigible to
tax under the Act. As per rule 5(3), the Chief Municipal
Officer/Assessor had to assess the tax and recover the same.
10. From the pleadings, it is forthcoming that there is no order
assessing the tax. In other words, a liability has been calculated
without associating the petitioner. Whereas Rule 5(3) provides
that the Assessing Officer has to assess the tax, thereby the
petitioner should be granted opportunity of hearing to put forth
the version as liability of tax or raising objections to quantification.
11. Assuming the calculation sheet-cum-demand notice is
treated to be an order, it is violative of principles of natural justice.
The petitioners were not provided an opportunity to put forth the
stand taken here in the petition.
12. There cannot be a quibble with the proposition that
opportunity of hearing before making the decision is the
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (13 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
requirement of the principles of natural justice. The principle has
been extended not only to quasi-judicial authorities but to the
administrative actions where the culmination of proceeding result
in civil consequences. It would be appropriate to quote the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Dharampal
Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise
Gauhati And Ors. reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519. The relevant
para is quoted below:-
"From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes
clear that the opportunity to provide hearing before
making any decision was considered to be a basic
requirement in the Court proceeding. Later on, this
principle was applied to other quasi-judicial
authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is
now clearly laid down that even in the
administrative actions, where the decision of the
authority may result in civil consequences, a
hearing before taking a decision is necessary. It
was, thus, observed in A.K. Kraipak's case (supra)
that if the purpose of rules of natural justice is to
prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see how
these rules should not be made available to
administrative inquiries. In the case of Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.[13] also the
application of principle of natural justice was
extended to the administrative action of the State
and its authorities. It is, thus, clear that before
taking an action, service of notice and giving of
hearing to the noticee is required. In Maharashtra
State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board
Mills & Anr.[14], this aspect was explained in the
following manner:
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (14 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
"3. It has been contended before us by the
learned counsel for the appellant that principles of
natural justice were satisfied before taking action
under Section 29, assuming that it was necessary
to do so. Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well
settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a
straight-jacket; its rules are not embodied and
they do vary from case to case and from one fact-
situation to another. All that has to be seen is that
no adverse civil consequences are allowed to
ensue before one is put on notice that the
consequence would follow if he would not take
care of the lapse, because of which the action as
made known is contemplated. No particular form
of notice is the demand of law: All will depend on
facts and circumstances of the case." In the case
of East India Commercial Company Ltd., Calcutta
& Anr. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta[15],
this Court held that whether the statute provides
for notice or not, it is incumbent upon the quasi-
judicial authority to issue a notice to the
concerned persons disclosing the circumstances
under which proceedings are sought to be initiated
against them, failing which the conclusion would
be that principle of natural justice are violated. To
the same effect are the following judgments:
a) U.O.I. & Ors. v. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr.[16]
b) Morarji Goculdas B&W Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. U.O.I.
& Ors.[17]
c) Metal Forgings & Anr. v. U.O.I. & Ors.[18]
d) U.O.I. & Ors. v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. & Anr.[19]
Therefore, we are inclined to hold that there was
requirement of issuance of show-cause notice by
the Deputy Commissioner before passing the order
of recovery, irrespective of the fact whether
[2024:RJ-JP:6902-DB] (15 of 15) [CW-7329/2023]
Section 11A of the Act is attracted in the instant
case or not."
13. In spite of alternative remedy, the writ jurisdiction is being
exercised taking in account that the impugned demand is in
violation of principles of natural justice and is not in complaince
with procedure prescribed in Rule 5. The case falls within the
exceptions carved out by Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool
Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) SCC 1.
14. The writ petitions are disposed of with the directions that the
demand notice shall be considered to be show-cause notice (for
short 'SCN').
15. Let petitioner appear in the office of Commissioner of the
Municipal Corporation concerned on 16.02.2024 at 11:00 AM for
filing response to the SCN. Thereafter, Commissioner shall decide
the issue of leviability of tax in accordance with law, after
providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
16. The affected parties shall be at liberty to move an application
before the Commissioner for granting an opportunity of hearing.
17. The writ petitions are allowed.
18. Needless to say that petitioners shall be at liberty to avail
remedy in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decisions.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
LAKSHYA/CHANDAN/94-108
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
