TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 23.07.2016 in this regard no further order is required but we hold that respondent 1 being guilty of compelling and forcing second round of litigation upon petitioner must be saddled with cost which we quantify to ₹ 50,000/ - petition disposed off. - WRIT TAX No. 546 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2016 - Mr. Sudhir Agarwal and Mr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, JJ. Counsel for Petitioner :Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :C.S.C. JUDGMENT Heard Sri Tarun Gulati, Advocate, assisted by Sri Nishant Mishra learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, for respondents. 2. Sri Chandra Prakash Mishra, respondent no. 1 is present in person pursuant to Court's order dated 11.07.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act for the period April to August 2014. Copies of the orders were also dispatched on earlier address of petitioner. It has also recovered a sum of ₹ 27,65,18,303/from Bank account of petitioner on 01.01.2015 and 03.01.2015 claiming to be outstanding tax dues for the period of 2013-14 and 2014-15. The orders were challenged in appeal and Additional Commissioner, Grade2 (Appeal-III), Commercial Tax, Noida (hereinafter referred to as ACCT') vide order dated 30.05.2015 set aside the orders dated 29.10.2014 observing that notices were not properly served upon petitioner and exparte orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without giving opportunity to the petitioner. 5. Copy of appellate order was serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l it acted in haste and also in a hurried manner withdraw the alleged tax dues through garnishing notice and exerting pressure upon Bank authorities. Court therefore, made an observation and strictures against Assessing Authority i.e. respondent 1 imposed cost of Rs. Two Lacs upon Commercial Tax Department and set aside the assessment orders and directed for refund of amount already recovered within a period of two weeks. 8. This Court also left it open to Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, to institute inquiry and fix responsibility on the erring officer for recovery of said amount. 9. Copy of judgment was served by respondent 1 along with letter dated 28.03.2016 and petitioner submitted that after adjusting the admitted amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting to transfer petitioners registration number from Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 2, Noida to Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector7, Ghaziabad. Respondent 1 believed that since transfer of registration has been made effective by order dated 31.03.2016 therefore, jurisdiction in pending matter prior to March 2016 continue to remain vested in respondent 1. 13. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Noida, sought a clarification from Commissioner, Commercial Tax, vide letter dated 29.06.2016 whereupon the Commissioner vide letter dated 20.07.2016 directed the registering authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with directions of this Court. The registering authority has passed an order on 23.03.2016 unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pass the impugned assessment orders on 04.05.2016. 17. Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, representing respondent 1 who is also present in person before this Court at the outset stated that there is a mistake on the part of respondent 1 which cannot be explained satisfactorily but respondent 1 dedicates apology and therefore, Court may consider the same and pass appropriate order. 18. In these facts and circumstances we are satisfied that here is a forced litigation by unmindful illegal act on the part of respondent 1 and realizing the same he has also withdrawn the impugned orders and also considered the fact he is an authority which was already adversely commenced by this Court in its order dated 29.02.2016 still he did not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
