Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. TARAWATI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Tarawati v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 671 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7891 (18 April 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

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

The compounding scheme is an optional scheme. It gives a period of 90 days for applying of compounding and thereafter further period of 90 days with 2% interest. If the person does not comply even within six months time, he would have been deemed to have opted not to go for the scheme of compounding. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saket Brick Trader Vs. Additional Commissioner (2001 UPTC 332) has held that there is no question of condonation of delay when an application for compounding is made after the prescribed period.

The period of 90 days or 180 days (with interest) runs from the date of agreement under the scheme.

Date of agreement in this case is 28.3.2002, which was approved on 29.4.2002. The period of 180 days even from the date of approval expired on 28.10.2002. The petitioner applied after that date on 22.11.2002. His application has been refused on that ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Government of Uttar Pradesh had issued directions in some cases for entertaining such compounding applications beyond the period of 180 days. He relies upon the order of the Principal Secretary of U.P. Government dated 28.5.2001 issued to the Commissioner, Trade Tax. The facts of that case are not clear from that letter dated 21.5.2001 and, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is free to approach respondent no. 1.

We decline to interfere in this writ petition.

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

18.4.2006

VKS/ WP671/06


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.