9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finds that the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 and consequential order dated 26.05.2023 demanding deposit of 10% of the total amount of grant-in-aid has been passed by the opposite party nos.1 and 3, respectively, without any reasoning or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is a trite law that no order prejudicing the interest of a person resulting in civil consequences can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is not the case of opposite parties that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or that the present case is such wherein notice of hearing is to be dispensed with. This Court finds that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before the passing of the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 and consequential order dated 26.05.2023, whereby the petitioner had been directed to deposit Rs. 40,75,035.90 as and towards pre-deposit for hearing of their representation dated 03.12.2021. Conclusion - i) The demand for a pre-deposit must be grounded in statutory provisions and is typically appropriate at the appellate stage, not during initial representation consideration. The orders dated 24.04.2023 and 26.05.2023 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the scheme of Government Order dated 27.09.2005, have started construction work of multiplex after obtaining prior permission of District Magistrate under the provisions of UP Cinema Rules, 1951, but have not been able to obtain license for public exhibition of films in the cinema halls of the multiplex till 31.3.2010, such multiplexes which obtain license for exhibition till 31.3.2011, will also be allowed the benefit of this scheme as per the provisions mentioned in Para-2 thereof, on compliance of other conditions mentioned in this Government Order. (5) The petitioner, a partnership firm, claiming itself to be a licensee of Audi 1 to 4 of GNG Multiplex situated at Saharanpur, submitted an application before the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Saharanpur as per the aforesaid Government Order dated 03.01.2011, which was accorded by the Licensing Authority i.e. District Magistrate, Saharanpur and the petitioner was sanctioned grant-in-aid amounting to Rs. 8,88,74,933.40, vide order dated 20.07.2015 for a period of 5 years i.e. upto 31.03.2020 on certain terms and conditions. (6) According to the petitioner, he moved an application on 29.02.2020 for renewal of the lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned Commercial Tax Department, Uttar Pradesh had sought various reports from time to time. (9) The fulcrum of the submission of the petitioner is that although, the matter had been pending active consideration, however, suddenly the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 has been passed by the Joint Secretary, State of U.P, directing the Commissioner, State Tax, U.P to take necessary action regarding deposit of 10% amount as per the recovery order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur against CNG Multiplex Saharanpur covered under the Incentive Scheme; re-examine the case; and provide his clear report to the Government, consequent of which, the District Magistrate has passed the order dated 26.05.2023, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the amount of grant-in-aid and interest (Rs.4,37,50,359/-) i.e. Rs. 40,75,035.90 in the head of GST account in pursuance of order dated 05.02.2021 within a period of one week and submit a copy of the challan so that the Commissioner, State Tax, Uttar Pradesh could be informed. It is these orders dated 24.04.2023 and 26.05.2023, which have been assailed in the present writ petition. (10) The contention of the learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and gone through the record available before us in the present writ petition, this Court find that although there is no dispute relating to the events during which the concession of the entertainment tax i.e. grant-in-aid was sanctioned and received by the petitioner, however, there is a serious dispute amongst the parties relating to the issue of breach of terms and conditions of the said concession. (13) Admittedly, opposite party no.3/Licensing Authority, in exercise of the rights vested in the said Government order dated 03.01.2011, has cancelled the concession and demanded refund of the entire amount from the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent vide order dated 05.02.2021, against which a representation dated 03.12.2021 filed by the petitioner is pending. Both parties are at ad-idem that the said representation is in active consideration, however, the petitioner disputes the manner in which the opposite party no.1 and 3 have issued the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 and consequential order dated 26.05.2023, respectively, demanding to deposit of 10% of the total amount sought as a refund of the grant-in-aid, as a condition precedent for re-consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opposite parties in demanding the said pre-deposit at the belated stage of April, 2023, especially when the representation had been pending since December, 2020. (16) Further, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 and consequential order dated 26.05.2023 demanding deposit of 10% of the total amount of grant-in-aid has been passed by the opposite party nos.1 and 3, respectively, without any reasoning or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court need not burden this Judgment, with various case laws on the subject that reasoning is the soul and hallmark of any judicial or administrative orders and a part of fair procedure. Suffice to say that the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan : (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the Apex Court, while dealing with the requirement of passing reasoned order by an authority whether administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial, has after applying the earlier declarations of law in this regard, summarized as under :- "...Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: "(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of Due Process." (17) Further, this Court finds that opposite parties no. 1 and 3 before passing the impugned orders demanding a deposit of 10% of the grant-in-aid have not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There is no quarrel on the aspect that a demand of payment of 10% of the grant-in-aid does give rise to civil consequences and would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. In any case, an opportunity of being heard is one of the most important co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
