Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VEER PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Veer Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 1507 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17049 (27 September 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 R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

The contention of the petitioner is that he has sold the Vehicle No. DEG 5237 on 15th December, 2000 to a kabadi. All the necessary information was given to the A.R.T.O., Mathura on 21.12.2000. He is, therefore, not liable to pay any tax after the date of the same. Recovery proceedings have initiated. The petitioner has already filed his objections on 18th August, 2006 before the Taxation Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Mathura, respondent no. 3, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition and is said to be still pending.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the averments made in the writ petition and its Annexures.

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 3 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the petitioner's objections dated 18th August, 2006 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order along with copy of the said objections are filed before him.

For a period of six weeks or till the objection is decided, whichever is earlier, the recovery proceedings impugned shall be kept in abeyance and shall abide by the order which may be passed by the respondent no. 3 on the petitioner's objections. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits.

27.9.2006

VKS/ WP1507/06


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.