In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the

impugned notice at Annexure – A dated 30.06.2022 issued

by the respondents to the petitioner calling upon him to pay

a sum of Rs.10,01,214/-.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the

material on record.

3.

In

addition

to

reiterating

the

various

contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and

referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that apart from the fact that no GST is

payable on the annuity to be paid by the petitioner since

Lease Agreement in favour of the petitioner was executed

on 13.02.1991, much prior to the GST, which came into

force on 01.07.2017, the petitioner had already made

payments by way of Demand Draft / Bankers Cheque

towards annuity as can be seen from the documents

produced at Annexures – C to M, which includes copies of

the Demand Draft / Bankers Cheque / correspondence,

³

etc., between the petitioner and the respondents. It is

contended that despite the petitioner having complied with

the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement and

having paid annuity within time as can be seen from the

aforesaid documents, respondents have failed to encash

the said Demand Drafts / Pay orders and consequently, no

interest is payable by the petitioner on account of delayed

payment, which is not attributable to the petitioner but in

fact attributable to the respondents, who have not chosen

to encash the said Demand Drafts / Pay orders. It is

therefore submitted that the impugned Notice at Annexure

– A dated 30.06.2022 deserves to be quashed.

4.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition

and the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submits

that in the event the petitioner were to revalidate the

Demand Drafts / Pay orders and re-submit the same, the

respondents would reconsider the claim of the petitioner

and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law.

⁴

5.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, the material on record discloses that the

petitioner had made payments by way of Demand Drafts /

Pay orders and also submitted that several letters, notice,

etc., are written to the respondents as can be seen from the

documents at Annexures – C to S filed in the petition.

6.

Under these circumstances, the inaction and

omission on the part of the respondents to encash the said

Demand Drafts / Pay orders cannot be attributed on to the

petitioner and consequently, liability to pay interest for the

delayed payment cannot be fastened upon the petitioner in

view of the payments made by the petitioner as evidenced

by the documents produced by the petitioner. Hence, I am

of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement

deserves to be quashed and directions are to be issued to

the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner

after the petitioner submits revalidated Demand Drafts to

the respondents.

7.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i)

Petition is hereby allowed.

⁵

(ii)

The impugned Notice at Annexure – A

dated 30.06.2022 issued by respondent No.1 is

hereby quashed.

(iii)

Petitioner

is

directed

to

submit

revalidated Demand Drafts / Pay orders to the

respondents within a period of three weeks from

today.

(iv)

Upon the petitioner submitting the

revalidated Demand Drafts / Pay orders to the

respondents, the respondents shall take account of

all the payments made by the petitioner including

revalidated Demand Drafts and take appropriate

decision / pass appropriate orders in accordance with

law, within a period of two months from the date of

submission of revalidated demand drafts / pay orders

by the petitioner.

(v)

It is made clear that insofar as payments

already made by the petitioner, petitioner would not

be liable to pay interest on the same.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SV