Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S PUNJ LLOYD LIMITED versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Punj Lloyd Limited v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 586 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6863 (29 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. W.P. (Tax) No.  586 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

The impugned order of the Commissioner granting permission under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, dated 18.3.2006 proceeds on certain grounds which are mentioned in the show cause notice dated 28.2.2006 but also contains another ground mentioned in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 18.3.2006, which is not mentioned anywhere in the show cause notice dated 28.2.2006.

Giving of a notice is mandatory. If grounds for sanction can include grounds other than those mentioned in the show cause notice, it would defeat the very purpose of giving a show cause notice.

In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.3.2006 is not in accordance with law.

Secondly, while granting permission under section 21(2), reasons must be mentioned as to why a particular work in a contract does not come within the category of 'civil work contract'.  

Saying that it does not fall within the category of 'civil work contract' is a conclusion, which must be supported by reasons.

In the circumstances. Instead of keeping this matter pending by calling for a counter affidavit, we consider it more appropriate, in the interest of the department also, to set-aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 18.3.2006, annexure-7 to this writ petition, requiring the Additional Commissioner to consider the matter afresh, if necessary, after giving a proper show cause notice and sufficient details as would admit of a appropriate reply and defence of the petitioner.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Dated : March 29, 2006

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.