TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me to be de-hired by the Divisional Commissioner w.e.f. 05.10.2021, in terms of his order dated 01.10.2021. However, immediately after de-hiring at the Divisional Level, a fresh requisition was made at the District Level by respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, vide his communication dated 27.10.2021, by virtue of which four Hotels, including the Hotel in question, came to be re-hired for accommodating protected persons of District Srinagar including Sarpanches, Councilors, DDC Members, contesting candidates etc. The petitioner raised bills, for the periods Hotel premises came to be hired, first at the Divisional level and later at the District level, however, grievance of the petitioner is that its payment is not being cleared despite the fact that hiring charges were verified and approved by the competent authorities and funds released by the Government. 03. It is further contended that when representative of the Hotel approached the office of Divisional Commissioner, he was informed that based on an ex-parte report of a Committee, amounts of Rs. 51,756/- and Rs. 37,980/- had been approved for payment on account of boarding and lodging charges w.e.f. 06.10.2021 to 31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 18.01.2023, pursuant to the directions issued by Financial Commissioner (Addl. Chief Secretary), Home Department, J&K for verification of bills of the hoteliers qua the rentals etc. submitted by various hotels hired for protected persons w.e.f. 05.10.2021. The Committee submitted its report vide letter dated 02.02.2023 and it was submitted to the Divisional Commissioner, vide letter dated 10.02.2023. It is contention of the respondents that bills raised by the petitioner were passed for an amount of Rs. 89,736/-, as per actual occupancy, those were duly authenticated by the committee headed by SDM (East), endorsed by Accounts Officer with the Deputy Commissioner and released in favour of the petitioner through Additional Treasury Tankipora vide Treasury No. 1 dated 27.03.2023. Therefore, according to the respondents, liability towards the petitioner stands cleared in totality. 09. Respondents are affront with the contention that bills raised by the petitioner are not only exaggerated figures but far-fetched from reality. Liability was examined by the committee constituted for the purpose, who recommended payment of Rs. 89,736/-, for the period w.e.f. 05.10.2021 to 31.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me to Rs. 12,90,650/-. After deducting income tax @ 10 % on rent and 2 % on catering and GST @ 2%, a net amount of Rs. 11,90,220/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner, which was duly received by the petitioner. The balance amount, according to the petitioner, for the aforesaid period is Rs. 8,33,124/- 13. Insofar as second part of hiring is concerned, it is contended that for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2021 to 04.10.2021, an amount of Rs. 33,17,104/- was claimed, which was reduced to Rs. 31,24,336/- as per the Estates rates by excluding the amount claimed for providing rooms to the security personnel posted in the Garath (Guard). The amount determined did not include in its entirety the rent claimed for the month of April 2021 amounting to Rs. 1,74,240/-. According to the petitioner, the amount determined by the accounts office of the Divisional Commissioner further reduced an amount of Rs. 1, 47, 568/- on account of dual accommodation, and it was determined that the total amount due to the petitioner was Rs. 29,76, 795/-. According to the petitioner, the official record of the respondents bears testimony to the fact that an amount of Rs. 1, 54, 397/- was due to the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AFFIDAVIT 16. Respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar responding to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner, has maintained its stand taken in the counter affidavit that full and final liability of the Government towards petitioner Hotel stands discharged and contended that writ petition is inter alia based on disputed and inflated financial claims. Petitioner has not demonstrated infringement of any fundamental or statutory right warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. It is contended that writ proceedings cannot be invoked for enforcement of contractual or pecuniary disputes requiring determination of disputed questions of fact, particularly where claims are contested, unaudited and unverified. 17. According to the respondents, present petition is a veiled attempt to seek judicial enforcement of a claim which has already been rejected by a competent fact-finding committee through a transparent and accountable process. The claim being highly inflated and devoid of proper substantiation is an attempt at unjust enrichment and abuse of the judicial process. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued to enforce such a disputed and unverified liability. 18. Accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Divisional Commissioner, however, neither in the objections nor in response to the supplementary affidavit they have dealt with first claim of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021. 24. In terms of Order VIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to make a general denial of the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, he is required to specifically deal with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth and it is a settled principle of law of pleadings that if every allegation of fact in the plaint is not denied specifically or by necessary implication, it shall be taken to be an admission in terms of Rule 5 of Order VIII of the Code. Now, when law relating to admission is examined in the light of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, I need not say anything more than what the legislature has intended in its framework that where admission of fact is made in the pleadings or otherwise, the Court at any stage of the proceedings has the jurisdiction to pass such order or give such judgment as it needs fit, having regard to such admission. It is also settled in law that such admission includes one that can be inferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued to remain in occupation of protected persons due to security concerns. It is averred that when static guard in the petitioner Hotel was withdrawn, petitioner filed a representation, whereupon it was directed that guard withdrawn from the Hotel premises be immediately re-deployed, as evident from the copy of the signal/fax message dated 17.10.2021 placed on record. It is thus contention of the petitioner that as protected persons refused to vacate the hotel, it came to be re-hired after the decision of a duly constituted committee, and therefore, Hotel remained in continued occupation of protected persons. 28. The record bears testimony to the fact that accommodation provided by the petitioner to the protectees at the Divisional or District Level was being guarded by J&K Police (Security Forces) round the clock and two rooms remained under continuous possession of the security forces for the entire hired period. After accommodation was provided by the petitioner on the strength of various orders issued at the Divisional or District Levels from time to time, petitioner was under an obligation to reserve the required boarding and lodging for the allottees, identified by the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aimant. The job of such Committee is to verify if services were rendered, goods were delivered, calculations made are correct and claims adheres to the policy/contractual norms or not. The claimant, in the circumstances and for the purpose for which the Committee is constituted, is to be accorded a right of hearing to submit explanations during the process of verification of bills, particularly when Committee proposes or intends to reject or reduce the claim. Principle of Audi alteram partem applies with full force if the rejection of a bill is based on allegations of fraud or misconduct or that claim is inflated. To ensure procedural fairness, the Committee must provide the claimant an opportunity to produce evidence, explain the discrepancies identified during verification and justify the claim. 32. As stated, the premises in question came to be de-hired by the respondents on 01.06.2022, but Committee was constituted much later on 05.11.2022, and Committee submitted its report three months thereafter on 02.02.2023. There is nothing in the stand of the respondents to indicate that Committee has bothered to verify the record of the petitioner Hotel regarding actual occupancy of ....