Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PRAKASH PATEL versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' ITS PRINCIPAL SECY. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Prakash Patel v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Principal Secy. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 742 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1152 (27 April 2005)

 

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

COURT NO.37

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.742 OF 2005

Ram Prakash Patel. ....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others.                           ....Respondents

...............

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Anant Vijai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.K.Sahai, Counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the State says that in view of the proposed order of this Court the filing of the C.A. is not necessary we therefore disposed of the writ petition with the direction that in view of the case setup by the petitioner that he has already paid a requisite amount of additional tax and that the adjustment of such payment has not been made while issuing the present demand of additional tax it is provided that the petitioner may make a representation to the authorities concerned, namely the Regional Transport Officer Chitrakoot Dham Region Banda within a maximum period of two weeks from today raising his grievance against the present demand of all kinds as may be available to him either factual or legal. In case such a representation is made with in the aforesaid period the same shall be considered and disposed of within the maximum period of six weeks thereafter. Till the disposal of representation the present recovery proceeding against the petitioner shall remain stayed.

In case representation/objection is not filed within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the benefit of this order will not be given to the petitioner and it is open to the respondents to proceed with the recovery proceeding in the accordance with law.

Dt.27.04.2005

R./


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.