Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Umesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 763 of 1999 [2004] RD-AH 663 (26 August 2004)


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).


Court No. 37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 763 of 1999


Umesh Kumar Vs. State of U. P. and others.

Hon'ble R. K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

The District Magistrate, Jhansi, had imposed a sum of Rs. 57940/- towards Entertainment tax on respondent no. 5 Makkhan Lal Agrawal on the ground that he had been operating cable T.V. and had a dish antenna on the roof of his house. However, in the appeal a stand was taken by the respondent no. 5 that he had sold the cable rights to the petitioner, who had also taken out a license and had been paying the Entertainment tax regularly. The State Government vide order dated 5.2.199 had accepted the plea of the respondent no. 5 and directed for recovery of Entertainment tax from the petitioner.

Heard Sri Vivek Sandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel representing the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri R. B. Kher, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 5.

The grievance of the petitioner is that without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing the State Government, respondent no. 1, had fixed the liability of payment of Entertainment Tax upon the petitioner. Necessary averments in this behalf have been made in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition, which have not been denied in the counter affidavit. Thus the order saddling the payment of Entertainment tax upon the petitioner entails civil consequences, which could not have been done without following the principles of natural justice and giving an opportunity of hearing.

In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 5.2.1999 filed as Annexure no. 7 to the writ petition is set aside and the respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also the respondent no. 5 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent. The petitioner undertakes to file a certified copy of this order before the said respondent within a week from today. Till the decision of the appeal the recovery of the amount shall remain stayed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

Dt/- 26.8.2004



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


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 |

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