9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1260 of 2007 titled as, Sri Anil Rai v. State of U.P. & others, was rejected. Vide aforesaid order, the petitioner was relegated to avail of his statutory remedy and as a precondition for hearing of appeal, an amount of Rs. one crore was directed to be deposited. 2. As pleaded in the writ petition, in the year 2003 ex parte orders were passed under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short, ' the Act of 1948') for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 against three different companies namely, M/s Shristi Agencies (Pvt.) Limited, M/s Rudder Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s Shivalik Ispat and Fabricators Private Ltd., raising a demand of Rs. 20,80,00,000/-, Rs. 6,08,40,000/- and Rs. 6,44,00,000/-, resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund of the amount on August 25, 2017, which was followed by a reminder dated July 23, 2020. It was on the aforesaid application that the impugned order dated September 17, 2020 was passed by respondent no. 3, stating that the Tribunal in its order having not directed for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner after acceptance of the appeal filed by him, the petitioner should approach the Tribunal for clarification of the order. The application for refund was rejected. 5. After filing of the present writ petition, the respondents challenged the order passed by the Tribunal by filing Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No. 28 of 2021 after a delay of 1766 days. The same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated September 2, 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited, M/s Rudder Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s Shivalik Ispat and Fabricators Private Ltd., was sought to be recovered from M/s Usha India Ltd. and M/s Malvika Steel Pvt. Ltd. in which the petitioner along with his brothers Anil Rai were the shareholders and directors. M/s Usha India Ltd. and M/s Malvika Steel Pvt. Ltd. are said to be debtors of the companies, from whom amount of tax is due. The amount was sought to be recovered from them in their individual capacity. The order was challenged by them by filing writ petitions before this Court. They were relegated to avail of their remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, which was to be heard on merits, subject to deposit of Rs. one crore by both the brothers. Undisputedly, the petitioner dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this Court on September 19, 2021, which is silent on the fact regarding challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal. 12. There is a specific averment made in paragraph No. 19 of the writ petition by the petitioner that the order passed by the Tribunal on June 9, 2016 was not challenged by the respondents and the same attained finality. To this, in the counter affidavit filed, there is no response, except a bald statement that the contents are not admitted. It is not mentioned that the aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by filing Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No. 28 of 2021, which already stood dismissed vide order dated September 2, 2021 before filin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
