Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandra Gas Service,Jodhpur And Ors vs The Jodhpur Municipal Corporation on 3 December, 2018
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 1550/2018
1. Chandra Gas Service, Jodhpur Through Partner Pradeep
Mathur S/o Late Prem Prakash Mathur, Aged 39 Years,
2. Ayushi Agencies, Jodhpur Through Proprietor Gautam
Mohnot S/o Late Dhool Chand Mohnot, Aged 46 Years,
3. Sunder Coal Depot, Jodhpur through Proprietor Sunder
Bhudwai s/o Late Gidumal Bhudwai, aged 57 years.
4. Shankar Furniture, Jodhpur Through Proprietor Anand
Sharma S/o Late Babulal Sharma, Aged 31 Years,
5. Vintage Handicraft, Jodhpur through Proprietor Gulab
Chand Chajjer s/o Late Nanakchand Ji, aged 53 years.
6. Prem Vilash Namkin, Jodhpur through Proprietor Om
Prakash s/o Late Kalyan Das Ji, aged 59 years.
7. Kishan Ice Factory, Jodhpur through Proprietor Govind
Chalani s/o Kishan Chand Ji, aged 57 years,
8. Vishnu Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur Through Director
Hemant Nihalani S/o Late Shankerdas Nihalani, Aged 45
Years,
9. Bhuwal Agro Industries, Jodhpur Through Proprietor Paras
Mal Mehta S/o Ramchander Mehta, Aged 62 Years,
10. Modern Celluloid Industries, Jodhpur Through Proprietor
Kailashchandra S/o Kishan Lal Ji, Aged 53 Years,
11. Jodhpur Home Appliances, jodhpur through Proprietor
Parmeshwar Solanki s/o Bhanwar Lal, aged 44 years.
12. Jodhpur Marketing Co., Jodhpur through Proprietor Vinod
Bhai Patel s/o Mitha Bhai, aged 59 years.
13. Babu Lal Daga s/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Daga aged 54 years.
14. Govind Vatika, Jodhpur through Proprietor Mohan Lal
Purohit s/o Govind Kishan Purohit, aged 75 years,
15. Nakoda Steel Furniture, Jodhpur through Proprietor Jai
Prakash Nahar s/o Durgachand Ji, aged 65 years,
16. Manish Handicraft, Jodhpur through Proprietor Navratan
s/o Kishan Lal Ji, aged 52 years,
17. Gandhi Perfumery Works, Jodhpur through Proprietor
Bhagwan Gandhi s/o Hari Shankar Ji, aged 59 years,
18. Suganchand Dhariwal s/o Shri Sampat Dhariwal, aged 56
(2 of 4) [CW-1550/2018]
years,
19. Janta Misthan Bhandar, Jodhpur through Proprietor Prem
Kishore Agarwal s/o Suwam Lal Agarwal, aged 65 years,
20. Aju Industires, Jodhpur Through Proprietor Kamal Rathi
S/o Mohan Lal Rathi, Aged 57 Years,
21. Smt. Anju Joshi w/o Prakash Joshi, aged 42 years,
22. Kohinoor Ice Cream, Jodhpur through Proprietor Kishu Lal
s/o Nanak Ram Ji, aged 64 years,
23. Aarti Agarbatti, Jodhpur through Proprietor Vijay Rathi s/o
Nand Kishore Rathi, aged 35 years,
24. Arjun Raj Mehta s/o Manak Raj Mehta, aged 72 years,
25. Appu Regxine House, Jodhpur through Proprietor Mohan
Lal Rathi s/o Hari Kishan Ji, aged 69 years,
26. Bajrang Cold Depot, Jodhpur through Proprietor Madan
Priti s/o Bhanwar Lal Ji, aged 74 years,
27. Prakash Marbles, Jodhpur through Proprietor Prakash s/
Radha Vallabh, aged 49 years,
28. Kamla Nehru Udhyog, Jodhpur through Proprietor Radha
Kishan s/o Narayan Das Ji, aged 76 years,
29. Ply House, Jodhpur through Proprietor Hari Prakash
Bhandari s/o Gauri Shankar Ji, aged 52 years,
30. Pawan Wholesaler, Jodhpur through Proprietor Kamal
Kishore s/o Jasraj Ji Jhanwar, aged 61 years,
31. Om Prakash Rathi s/o Shri Poonam Chand, aged 50 years,
32. New R.K. Public School, Jodhpur through Rahul Birla s/o
Shri Madan Lal Birla, aged 33 years,
33. Ramalaya, Jodhpur through President Inder Raj Joshi s/o
Bheem Raj Joshi, aged 72 years,
34. Kaidar Das Tapariya s/o Shri Ramgopal Tapariya, aged 75
years,
All resident of -C/o Shree Ram Rishi Brahmachari Ashram,
Shamshan Ghat, Gaddi, Bhooteshwar Bhukhand, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
The Jodhpur Municipal Corporation Through The Commissioner,
Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
(3 of 4) [CW-1550/2018]
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Archana Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order 03/12/2018 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with following prayer:
"(A) That the demand notice for Urban Development Tax (Annx.10) issued to the petitioner Vishnu Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. And similar to which is likely to be issued to rest of the petitioners, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(B) The respondent-Corporation may kindly be directed to issue a demand notice for Tax to the petitioners from 24.08.2016 onwards, by taking into account the correct D.L.C. rate.
(C) That respondent-Corporation may thus be restrained from taking coercive steps against the petitioners in pursuance of the demand notice (Annx.10).
(D) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in accordance with facts & grounds stated, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.
(E) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that vide communication dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure-10), the respondents have assessed the Urban Development Tax provisionally and raising the demand contrary to the provisions of law.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that no demand in pursuance to the calculation dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure-10) has been raised by the respondents. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have not yet been called upon to give bills as per Section 128 and 129 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (4 of 4) [CW-1550/2018] whereby the information regarding the liability period and due tax is given. Counsel further submits that as per proforma of Urban Development Tax (Annexure-R/1) in the event of issuance notice for depositing the Urban Development Tax, the petitioners are having an opportunity to raise their objection within 30 days of the issuance of final notice. Counsel further submits that in pursuance to Section 128 and 129 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, no final notices have been issued to the petitioners.
In that view of the matter and in my considered view, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is pre-mature and the same deserves to be dismissed. However, in the event of issuance of notice for depositing the Urban Development Tax under Sections 128 and 129 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their objection within 30 days as mentioned under the proforma (Annexure-R/1).
The writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J 16-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)