TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land revenue under Section 280 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950. He has also prayed to quash the recovery citation dated 02.08.2013, and direction not to recover any amount from him. 3. It is submitted by Sri Vikrant Pandey that arrears of assessed fee was due against Sri Pradeep Kumar and Sri Kashiram - respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which the petitioner agreed to pay under a private arrangement, to avoid recovery and prosecution. The writ petitions filed by retail vendors challenging the assessment were allowed by this Court, and by which Sri Pradeep Kumar and Sri Kashiram - respondent Nos. 5 and 6 became entitled for refund of the entire amount. Since the petitioner deposited the amount, on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner) and Pradeep Kumar and Kashi Ram (defendant Nos. 1 & 4-respondent Nos. 4 & 5), to which the Excise Department (defendant Nos. 2 & 3) is neither party nor will be affected by the compromise. 5. The State Government amended the law relating to assessed fee retrospectively, on account of which, the entire amount refunded by the department was liable to be repaid by the assessee. The Excise Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad sent a letter to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur on 27.08.2010, quoting the order of the High Court dated 14.07.2010, in Writ Tax No. 370 of 1999 (Sita Ram Shivhare Vs. State of U.P. And others), and directed that the assessed fee, which has been refunded to Sri Gopal Singh, Sri Kashi Ram and Sri Pradeep Kumar may be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kumar and Sri Kashiram - respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and hence they alone can be made liable to pay the amount, when the levy was held to be valid retrospectively. 7. We find the argument to be attractive but on the admitted facts stated by the petitioner in the Civil Suit No. 506 of 2000 and the subsequent Suit No. 369 of 2013 (Ravindra Kumar Talwar Vs. State of U.P and others) filed by him, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court. Firstly, we may observe that the petitioner having failed to obtain interim order in Suit No. 369 of 2013, filed the present writ petition when the injunction application in the Suit is still pending. Secondly, we find that in view of the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ravindra Kumar Talwar will be entitled to take all proceedings in respect of licence; he will also entitle to receive the amount, which was refunded under the orders of the Supreme Court and will also be entitled to appoint Legal Advisor. The plaintiff Shri Ravindra Kumar Talwar was given all the rights in connection with FL-2 licence, for which he has no objection. In paragraph 3, it is stated that after the power of attorney was executed in his favour, the plaintiff had invested all the money, and was running the business. He also deposited Government fees, bank guarantee and was entitled to refund of entire amount, in pursuance to the orders of the Supreme court. 9. We find that the petitioner claims to be running the entire business o....