Allahabad High Court
Sky Cable Television Network Lko. Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt Of ... on 2 March, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 58 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sky Cable Television Network Lko. Thru. Its Sole Proprietor Smt. Rajesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt Of State Tax Civil Sectt Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.
2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-
"A) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the recovery certificate dated 03.12.2022 annexed herewith as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition."
3. Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the order impugned in this petition is an appealable order under Section 12 (2) of the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, says that the Act itself provides that an opportunity of hearing shall be given to the Assessee before any order is passed against him/ her. However, the notice that was issued to the petitioner was never served upon her. The earlier address of the petitioner was '4/529, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow' and the current registered office is at '3/332, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow'.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the order dated 03.09.2022/03.10.2022 issued from the office of the District Magistrate Lucknow, indicating the correct address of the petitioner as '3/332, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow' and also indicating that initially the Dak Runner had been sent with the demand notice to the earlier address of the petitioner, however, she could not be located, therefore, the current address was found from the post office concerned and the demand notice was served on the current address.
6. Learned counsel for the State Respondents, however, has pointed out from the same order dated 03.09.2022/03.10.2022 that the petitioner had been served notice.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the notice was served on the incorrect address.
8. However, this Court is of the opinion that statutory remedy being available to the petitioner, the ground of the order impugned having been passed without following the principles of natural justice, can be taken before the Appellate Authority by the petitioner.
9. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
Order Date :- 2.3.2023 Rahul