1
Court No. - 27
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 3920 of 2003
Petitioner :- Devendra Motors Pvt. Ltd.Thru Managing Director
(Recovery)
Respondent :- U.P. Cooperative Union Ltd. Thru Managing
Director & 2 Ors
Petitioner Counsel :- J.N. Mathur
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Rakesh Kumar (S.C)
Connected with
Writ Petition No.4906(M/B) of 2001
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.
Heard Mr. Akash Prasad, learned counsel holding brief for
Mr. Mudit Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H.P.
Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.
In both these writ petitions, common question of law and
facts are involved, hence, hence both are decided by the present
common judgment.
The respondents have attached the petitioner’s property
along with certain goods and kept it under supurdagi of one Shri
Arun Kumar Srivastava, Nazir. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of
India.
The petitioner’s counsel took a plea against the attachment
and seizer of the property in question stating that while
seizing/attaching the property, the respondents have also put their
seal on the immoveable property which is a showroom/godown.
In any case, the revenue is not entitled to seize the showroom
causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. He further
submits that to the most, the respondents are entitled for seizer of
goods but they have no right to deprive the petitioner from his
immoveable property by putting their seal over the
showroom/godown. Accordingly, the petitioner claims for payment
2
of damages to the tune of Rs.36 lacs and also for issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to
unlock the showroom of the godown.
In response to the submission made by the petitioner’s
counsel, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has invited
attention of this Court to sub para (iii) of para 3 and para 13 of the
Counter Affidavit wherein it has been stated that for the
assessment year 1993-94, 1994-95, 1996-97, 1998-99 and 1999-
2000, the petitioner has to pay tax amounting to Rs.20,11,959,53
along with interest and with intention to recover the outstanding
tax dues, the department has proceeded against the petitioner
with attachment of property in question. It has been further stated
that after attaching the goods and putting the seal in the
showroom of the godown, it has been given in the supurdagi of
Nazir Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava. It has also been submitted by
the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that there is no question
of seizer of the petitioner’s immoveable property. The property
has been attached with intention to recover the outstanding tax
dues against the petitioner.
During pendency of the writ petition, by order dated
21.5.2002, passed in writ petition No.4906(M/B) of 2001, a
Division Bench of this Court has directed to open the showroom of
godown with liberty to the department to take away the goods. In
pursuance to the above order, Mr. H.P. Srivastava submits that the
showroom of the godown was unlocked and the goods have been
taken away by the department and presently, it has been placed in
the basement of the department. Accordingly, it appears that the
department has not proceeded to seize the petitioner’s premises;
rather it was a step to realise the outstanding tax dues from the
petitioner.
The factual averments contained in para 3(iii) and para 13 of
the counter affidavit have not been denied by the petitioner..
Thus, it is evident that the tax which the respondents have to
recover are due since long. On failure to pay the same, the
3
department has proceeded by attaching the goods and putting its
lock in the showroom for safe custody.
In spite of repeated queries made by this Court as to why
the petitioner has not paid the outstanding tax dues to the
revenue, no satisfactory reply has been given by the petitioner’s
counsel. Thus, it is evident that for more than last 10 years, the
tax dues have not been paid by the petitioner to the revenue. The
petitioner does not seem to be fair in his conduct with regard to
payment of tax dues.
It has been stated by the learned Chief Standing Counsel
that till date, the petitioner has not paid the outstanding tax dues,
hence the goods have not been released. Such conduct on the
part of the petitioner disentitles him to get any equitable relief from
this Court. He also submits that the assessment order has
attained finality and in spite of the fact that no appeal is pending
and the assessment order has attained finality, the petitioner has
not paid outstanding tax. Inaction on the part of the petitioner to
pay the outstanding tax dues, as observed above, is unjust and
unfair. No case for interference under extraordinary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
In view of above, both the writ petitions are dismissed in
limine. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.7.2010
kkb/