Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/4616/2011 on 31 December 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 4616 of 2011
Decided on: 31.12.2015
Madan Mohan Sharma
…Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Amrita Messie, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with M/s Anup Rattan, V.S. Chauhan, and Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate General.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. (Oral)
Writ petitioner has sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to relax the tax liability and penalty and exempt him from paying the token tax on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition.
2. It appears that the writ petitioner had purchased bus, bearing registration No. HP-18-4100, in the year 1996, financed by M/s Tirupati Services Ltd. Head- Office at Kanpur and M/s Tata Finance Ltd., and was regularly plying the bus, but unfortunately, due to unhealthy competition and domestic problems, he was not in a position to ply the bus, the same remained parked and idle and that was the reason, he was not in a position to renew the documents and to pay taxes including token tax, constraining him to make representations, which were considered, but penalty was imposed upon him. Further, pleaded that he has availed all the remedies, but in vain. That is how the writ petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition.
3. This Court has passed the interim directions from time to time and in compliance to the said directions, the writ petitioner has deposited the entire tax except the token tax and penalty and the respondents have allowed the writ petitioner to ply the bus.
4. The only question is - whether the penalty and token tax is to be recovered or the competent authority is to be directed to examine the case of the writ petitioner and pass appropriate order after hearing the writ petitioner?
5. At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that the averments contained in the writ petition have remained unrebutted and it is a hard fact that the bus remained parked due to the compelling circumstances, the details of which have been given in para 2 (iii) of the writ petition.
6. The respondents have not specifically denied the averments contained in para 2 (iii) of the writ petition.
7. It is beaten law of land that if the averments have not specifically been denied, are deemed to have been admitted.
8. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition by directing the competent authority to examine the case of the writ petitioner in light of the averments contained in para 2
(iii) of the writ petition and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the writ petitioner, within six weeks.
9. We hope and trust that the competent authority shall consider the case of the writ petitioner sympathetically.
10. It goes without saying that in case the decision is made against the writ petitioner, he is at liberty to challenge the same.
11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly alongwith all pending applications.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
Chief Justice
(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge December 31, 2015 (CM Thakur )