TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e such a representation is made, the same shall be considered by authority concerned and if aforesaid amount has been paid towards tax, appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above and amount found refundable shall be refunded within two months thereafter. It is made very clear that if any amount has been realized or paid by petitioner towards service charge or fee etc., or any amount is due towards that aspect, Lucknow Nagar Nigam shall give details of such amount. It goes without saying that observations made above in respect to service charges etc.; it relates to demand already made by Lucknow Nagar Nigam, and due against petitioner but if no demand has been made, for such contem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent numbers 1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs.7,29,746/- and Rs.2 lacs deposited by the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and within such time as may kindly be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. 3. Property in question, under the provisions of Enemy Property Act, 1968, as amended by Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2016, vests in Central Government and is managed through Custodian, Enemy Property. 4. Shri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 i.e. Custodian, Enemy Property also admitted that disputed property is enemy property vests in the Central Government and respondent no.4 is the person authorized to manage the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for Lucknow Nagar Nigam fairly conceded that in view of provisions of Constitution of India, as also law as noted above, Lucknow Nagar Nigam may not charge tax in respect to property of Central Government India but may demand levy fee, if any, with respect to service rendered by it like water charge and sewerage charge etc. 10. Present case relates only to tax, i.e. house Tax and water Tax. Hence, the same is not leviable from petitioner in respect to property, which is admittedly Central Government's property. Impugned recovery is, therefore, quashed. 11. Counsel for petitioner then contended that amount already deposited with respondents be directed to be refunded to petitioner. 13. We provide that petitioner will ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
