SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(All) 352

[2008(3) ADJ 91 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUSHIL HARKAULI AND SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ.
M/s. VIMAL ORGANICS LTD. ........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ........Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1828 of 2007,
decided on 13th February, 2008)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Manish Goel for the Petitioners; K.P. Shukla and S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977—Section 13—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978—Rule 19—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 122 and Order VIII, Rule 1—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 6—Recovery proceedings—Initiation of—Appeal—Period of limitation—Power of condoning delay in filing appeal—Limitation for filing appeal was only 30 days—Also limited upto 45 days—Appeals rejected by appellate authority, as it were being filed beyond period of limitation—Hence, petition against—Held, no justification of condoning delay of several months to several years—Appellate authority has not erred in law by rejecting those appeals of petitioners, being barred by limitation under Rule 9(3) of Rules of 1978—Impugned recovery against petitioners pursuant to recovery citation shall remain suspended—And petitioners permitted to pay entire balance amount, pursuant to impugned recovery citation, in four equal quarterly instalments. [Paras 24, 25 and 33]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner filed 12 appeals against assessment orders passed by the Cess Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow relating to period 1994 to 2007. The said appeals were preferred on the same day, namely, 15.10.2007 under Section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Rule 9 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The limitation for filing appeal was only thirty days from the date of communication of order of assessment. The power to condone delay in filing appeal is also limited upto 45 days. Thus all the said appeals, being filed beyond limitation, have been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.11.2007. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the appellate order dated 15.11.2007 (Anenxure 1 to the writ petition). Since in the meantime recovery proceedings had also been initiated, it has also sought a writ of certiorari for quashing various assessment orders passed by respondent No. 4 between 1994 to 2007 whereagainst his appeals have been dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2007 and also recovery citation dated 6.10.2007. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 4 to decide his objections against the assessment orders and refrain from making any recovery from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned assessment orders as well as recovery certificate.

2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is an industrial unit engaged in manufacture of bleaching earth which is used in refining edible oils. It consumes water for boiler feed, domestic purposes and processing. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s industrial unit is liable to pay cess under the Act. It appears that he did not pay cess regularly between 1994 to 2006 and, therefore, assessment orders were passed by respondent No. 4, the first being dated 1.3.1994 and thereafter on various dates, till 26.2.2007, making demand of cess from the petitioner. The details of various assessment orders, period and amount of assessment of cess is as under :

S.No. Date of Period of assessment Amount

Assessment assessed

order (in Rupees)

1. 1.3.1994 1.1.1993 to 28.2.1994 20,249.08

2. 16.5.2000 1.3.1994 to 31.12.1999 1,77,292.50

3. 20.2.2001 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2000 33,640.50

4. 11.10.2001 1.1.2001 to 31.3.2001 8,410.13

5. 7.3.2002 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2001 16,820.25

6. 17,8.2002 1.0.2001 to 31,3.2002 19,706.16

7. 24.2.2003 1.4.2002 to 30.9.2002 16,820.25

8. 21.4.2004 1.10.2002 to 5.5.2003 20,090.88

9. 8.11.2004 6.5.2003 to 31.3.2004 96,409.00

10. 20.7.2005 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 1,06,464.00

11. 19.12.2005 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005 53,232.00

12. 26.2.2007 1.10.2005 to 31.12.2006 1,33,080.00

3. The aforesaid assessment orders were communicated to the petitioner within reasonable time after passing thereof. It is not disputed that the petitioner, if felt aggrieved by the said assessment orders, had statutory remedy of filing appeal under Section 13 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Rules but no such appeals were preferred by the petitioner within the period prescribed under Rules. It is, however, said that after receiving the assessment orders, the petitioners filed certain objections requesting assessing authority to modify or recall assessment orders but no order has been passed by the assessing authority thereon. In the meantime, the amount of assessment was also not paid by the petitioner as required under the aforesaid assessment orders and on the contrary, he made certain lump sum payments :

Period Amount paid (in Rupees)

1.3.1994 to 31.12.1999 Rs. 45,000

1.1.2001 to 31.3.2001 Rs. 50,000

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top