Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA versus THE TAXATION OFFICER, ETWAH/A.R.T.O. (ADMIN.) ETAWAH & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. The Taxation Officer, Etwah/A.R.T.O. (Admin.) Etawah & Ors. - WRIT TAX No. 1110 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11540 (14 July 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.  1110 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

The amount of Rs. 2,44,550/- towards tax and additional tax has been demanded from the petitioner by the notice dated 6.3.2006, Annexure 1 to this petition. The demand for tax appears to be for the period 2003 to 2006 and the demand for additional tax appears to be for the period 2002 to 2006.

The petitioner relies upon a newspaper report along with his own statement that for two years prior to the said newspaper report dated 21.4.2006, the route was not plyable and accordingly all buses of that route had come to a standstill. On this basis, the petitioner wants to resist the payment of amount demanded.

Without expressing any opinion on this, we require the respondent No. 1, to look into the matter and take appropriate reasoned decision as to the amount of tax and additional tax, which can be charged from the petitioner. The decision will be taken by a reasoned order after considering the representation of the petitioner, which may be made with full details along with certified copy of this order within two months of the date on which  the same is received by the respondent No. 1.

If the representation is made within two weeks from today, and simultaneously the petitioner also furnishes the receipt of deposit of Rs. 1,22,000/- which represents approximately half of the amount demanded, the remaining amount will not be recovered from the petitioner till the representation is decided in accordance with this order. The remaining amount is not being stayed because the demand of tax as above is for the period of four years, whereas, so far the petitioner's objection is only with regard to two year period out of the said four year period.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Certified copy of the order may be issued on payment of requisite charges by 17th July 2006.

Dated : July 14, 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.