# Ashok Gandhi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 246
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-04
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 147 of 2023
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-gandhi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54558
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Tax Law - Entertainment Tax -
Multiplex Cinema - Incentive Scheme -
10% of the amount of grant-in-aid and
interest was directed to be deposited for
re-examining
the
case
-
Validity
challenged - Held, the demand to deposit
10% of the total grant-in-aid concession
provided to the petitioner, for hearing of
the representation is neither founded in
the statute nor the same is at an appellate
stage. (Para 9 & 15)

B. Tax Law - Principle of natural justice -
Applicability - No opportunity of hearing
3 All. Ashok Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
247
was given before directing to deposit 10%
of the amount of grant-in-aid - Effect -
Held, demand of payment of 10% of the
grant-in-aid
does
give
rise
to
civil
consequences and would cause serious
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. In
any case, an opportunity of being heard is
one of the most important component of
'principle of Natural Justice' - No order
prejudicing the interest of a person
resulting in civil consequences can be
passed without affording an opportunity
of hearing. (Para 17 and 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
occurring under Section 128 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 and Section 198 (4)
of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be
permitted to be confined to allotment of
land under Section 195 read with Section
198 of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act alone;
rather it covers in its fold the admission of
a person to Gaon Sabha land giving him
the benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the
said Act."

13. Paragraph No. 11 of the
judgment rendered by this Court in the case
of Smt. Reshma Devi (Supra) will be also
relevant for perusal which is as under:-

"11.The submission of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
proceeding
of
cancellation
of
the
allotment
of
land
under
Section
122B(4F) could not be initiated, under
Sub-Section
4
of
Section
198
is
misconceived for the reason that under
Section
122B(4F),
the
person
is
admitted as bhumidhar with nontransferable right of the land under
Section 195 and Section 198 takes care
of Section 195 and 197 both, therefore
sub-section (4) of Section 198 would be
applicable with respect to both i.e.
allotment of land under Section 195 or
197 of the Act."

14. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case as well as ratio of
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court, the impugned order
dated 25.01.1996 passed by respondent no.
1/Board of Revenue in reference case nos.
15 to 17 of 1995-96 as well as the order
dated 17.09.1994 passed by respondent no.
2/ Sub-Divisional Officer, Firozabad are
liable to be set aside and the same are
hereby set aside.
15.
The
writ
petition
stands
allowed
and
order
dated
31.01.1994/20.01.1994
granting
the
benefits of Section 122B (4-F) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in favour of the
petitioners is affirmed. The authorities are
directed to record the name of the
petitioners on the basis of the order
granting the benefits of Section 122B (4-F)
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the revenue
records accordingly.

16. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 246
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 147 of 2023

Ashok Gandhi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Tax Law - Entertainment Tax -
Multiplex Cinema - Incentive Scheme -
10% of the amount of grant-in-aid and
interest was directed to be deposited for
re-examining
the
case
-
Validity
challenged - Held, the demand to deposit
10% of the total grant-in-aid concession
provided to the petitioner, for hearing of
the representation is neither founded in
the statute nor the same is at an appellate
stage. (Para 9 & 15)

B. Tax Law - Principle of natural justice -
Applicability - No opportunity of hearing
3 All. Ashok Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
247
was given before directing to deposit 10%
of the amount of grant-in-aid - Effect -
Held, demand of payment of 10% of the
grant-in-aid
does
give
rise
to
civil
consequences and would cause serious
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. In
any case, an opportunity of being heard is
one of the most important component of
'principle of Natural Justice' - No order
prejudicing the interest of a person
resulting in civil consequences can be
passed without affording an opportunity
of hearing. (Para 17 and 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs Masood Ahmed
Khan; (2010) 9 SCC 496

2. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs CCE; (2015) 8
SCC 519 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 489

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1)
Heard
Shri
Rajeev
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State.

(2) This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed, assailing the orders dated 24.04.2023
and 26.05.2023 passed by the opposite
party No. 3-District Magistrate/Licensing
Authority, Saharanpur and opposite party
no.1/State,
respectively,
whereby
the
petitioner has been directed to deposit 10%
of the amount of grant-in-aid and interest
(Rs.4,37,50,359/-) i.e. Rs.40,75,035.90 in
the head of GST account within a period of
one week and submit a copy of the challan
so that the Commissioner, State Tax, Uttar
Pradesh could be informed.

(3) Petitioner before this Court was
running a cinema hall, namely, G.N.G.
Multiplex,
at
Saharanpur,
which
was
constructed by partnership firm as per terms
and conditions of deed of partnership dated
05.03.2008 contained in Annexure no.3 to the
petition. He was granted license by the
licensing authority to run Audi 1 to 4 Cinema
Hall in the aforesaid G.N.G. Multiplex.

(4) The State Government had issued a
Government
Order
dated
03.01.2011,
whereby
in
superssesion
of
earlier
Government Orders and also Incentive
Scheme, 2005, the State Government had
floated new Incentive Scheme for the year
2010 for the purpose opening multiplex
cinema hall in the State. This Incentive
Scheme of 2010 was effective w.e.f.
31.03.2015. As per the said Scheme of 2010,
the benefit of this scheme shall be admissible
to all such multiplexes constructed during this
period,
which
have
completed
the
construction of the multiplex after obtaining
prior permission for construction from the
licensing authority under the rules provided
in the UP Cinema Rules, 1951 and have
obtained license for cinema screening by
31.3.2015. However, those applicants who,
being
influenced
by
the
scheme
of
Government Order dated 27.09.2005, have
started construction work of multiplex after
obtaining
prior
permission
of
District
Magistrate under the provisions of UP
Cinema Rules, 1951, but have not been able
to obtain license for public exhibition of films
in the cinema halls of the multiplex till
31.3.2010, such multiplexes which obtain
license for exhibition till 31.3.2011, will also
be allowed the benefit of this scheme as per
the provisions mentioned in Para-2 thereof,
on compliance of other conditions mentioned
in this Government Order.

(5) The petitioner, a partnership firm,
claiming itself to be a licensee of Audi 1 to
4 of GNG Multiplex situated at Saharanpur,
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted
an
application
before
the
Licensing Authority/District Magistrate,
Saharanpur
as
per
the
aforesaid
Government
Order
dated
03.01.2011,
which was accorded by the Licensing
Authority
i.e.
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur
and
the
petitioner
was
sanctioned grant-in-aid amounting to Rs.
8,88,74,933.40,
vide
order
dated
20.07.2015 for a period of 5 years i.e. upto
31.03.2020 on certain terms and conditions.

(6) According to the petitioner, he
moved an application on 29.02.2020 for
renewal of the license for the financial year
2020-21 and also submitted renewal fees of
license for Audi 1 to 4 i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- on
21.03.2020
before
the
Licensing
Authority/District Magistrate, Saharanpur.
However, owing to the pandemic Covid-19,
the District Magistrate, Saharanpur directed
all the Multiplex Cinema Hall to close
down with effect from 16.03.2020 to
31.03.2020, which came to be extended till
02.04.2020. According to the petitioner, the
direction
for
closure
continued
till
15.10.2020 and thereafter a SOP issued by
the State Government for opening of
certain activities including the Cinema Hall
and Multiplex. Further, the Commercial
Tax Officer/Prabhari Adhikari (erstwhile
Entertainment Tax), Saharanpur also issued
a general order dated 07.10.2020 to all the
licensee to complete all the formalities
along with the compliance report upto
14.10.2020.

(7) Apparently, the petitioner also
filed an application dated 14.10.2020 for
renewal of license and grant-in-aid. It is the
case of the petitioner that although, the
State
Government
issued
SOP
on
15.10.2020 for opening of the Multiplex
with the sitting capacity of 50%, however,
since the film industry had closed down its
business all over the world during that
Covid -19 period, no new films came to be
released and unfortunately the District
Magistrate
without
providing
any
opportunity of hearing passed an order
dated 05.02.2021 against the petitioner
relating to violation of terms of condition
as mentioned in Government Order dated
03.10.2011 and consequently directed the
petitioner
to
deposit/refund
Rs.
4,37,50,359.00
being
the
cumulative
amount arrived after the grant-in-aid
amount sanctioned of Rs. 2,89,64,466/- and
interest
of
18%
amounting
to
Rs.
1,47,85,893/-. In the interregnum, the
petitioner was also able to obtain the
requisite compliance certificate under the
UP Cinematograph Rules, 1951 from the
Electrical Inspector on 25.03.2021, Medical
Officer of Health on 21.03.2021 and
Regional Fire Officer on 01.04.2021,
leading to renewal of license of Audi 1 to 4
of
the
petitioner
with
effect
from
05.04.2021 and valid upto 31.0.3.2024.

(8) The petitioner, admittedly, did not
assail the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2021
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur,
however,
he
filed
a
representation dated 03.12.2021 against the
order dated 05.02.2021. Thereafter, the
Deputy Secretary, State of U.P from the
concerned Commercial Tax Department,
Uttar Pradesh had sought various
reports from time to time.

(9) The fulcrum of the submission of
the petitioner is that although, the matter
had been pending active consideration,
however, suddenly the impugned order
dated 24.04.2023 has been passed by the
Joint Secretary, State of U.P, directing the
Commissioner, State Tax, U.P to take
necessary action regarding deposit of 10%
amount as per the recovery order dated
3 All. Ashok Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
249
05.02.2021
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur
against
CNG
Multiplex Saharanpur covered under the
Incentive Scheme; re-examine the case; and
provide his clear report to the Government,
consequent
of
which,
the
District
Magistrate has passed the order dated
26.05.2023, directing the petitioner to
deposit 10% of the amount of grant-in-aid
and
interest
(Rs.4,37,50,359/-)
i.e.
Rs.40,75,035.90 in the head of GST
account in pursuance of order dated
05.02.2021 within a period of one week
and submit a copy of the challan so that the
Commissioner, State Tax, Uttar Pradesh
could be informed. It is these orders dated
24.04.2023 and 26.05.2023, which have
been assailed in the present writ petition.

(10) The contention of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner is that earlier
against the order dated 05.02.2021, the
petitioner moved an application dated
03.12.2021
before
the
Licensing
Authority/District Magistrate, Saharanpur
on various grounds, which is still pending
before
the
State
Government
since
December, 2021 and various report has also
been called for in connection with the
petitioner's
representation,
however,
without taking any decision on the
petitioner's representation, all of a sudden,
the Joint Secretary, State of U.P., vide
impugned order dated 24.04.2023, directed
the Commissioner (State Tax), Government
of U.P., to take action for depositing of
10% amount in pursuance of the recovery
order dated 05.02.2021, consequent of
which, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur,
has issued the consequential order dated
26.05.2023.
Submission
is
that
the
representation had been pending before the
State Government since December, 2021
and the impugned order dated 26.05.2023
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur
pursuant
to
order
dated
24.04.2023
passed
by
the
State
Government, demanding deposit of 10%
amount, after three years, is arbitrary and
without any legal basis. According to the
learned Counsel, all the licenses had been
applied for timely renewal and there was no
occasion for abruptly passing the impugned
orders as the representation had been
pending consideration with the competent
Authority since more than 3 years.

(11) On the other hand, leaned
Standing Counsel for State, although did
not dispute about the facts and events of the
present writ petition, however, has strongly
objected the manner in which the recovery
proceedings are being tried to be stalled by
the petitioner. According to him, the
petitioner is in clear violation of condition
mention in para-7 of the agreement and
failed to run the Multiplex in continuation
to the grant-in-aid for five years. According
to him, the petitioner closed down the
Multiplex from 15.10.2020 to 15.04.2021
and caused great revenue loss to the
department. The learned Counsel has
submitted that the petitioner has been
sending
representation
to
various
authorities
including
the
Agriculture
Minister, Chief Minister through IGRS,
Indian Industries Association etc. merely to
pressurize the department and eventually
delay the recovery proceedings against
them.

(12) Having regard to the submissions
of the learned Counsel for the parties and
gone through the record available before us
in the present writ petition, this Court find
that although there is no dispute relating to
the events during which the concession of
the entertainment tax i.e. grant-in-aid was
sanctioned and received by the petitioner,
however, there is a serious dispute amongst
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the parties relating to the issue of breach of
terms
and
conditions
of
the
said
concession.

(13)
Admittedly,
opposite
party
no.3/Licensing Authority, in exercise of the
rights vested in the said Government order
dated
03.01.2011,
has
cancelled
the
concession and demanded refund of the
entire amount from the petitioner along
with interest at the rate of 18 per cent vide
order dated 05.02.2021, against which a
representation dated 03.12.2021 filed by
the petitioner is pending. Both parties are at
ad-idem that the said representation is in
active
consideration,
however,
the
petitioner disputes the manner in which the
opposite party no.1 and 3 have issued the
impugned order dated 24.04.2023 and
consequential order dated 26.05.2023,
respectively, demanding to deposit of 10%
of the total amount sought as a refund of
the grant-in-aid, as a condition precedent
for re-consideration of the representation of
the petitioner.

(14) Since the order for cancellation
dated 05.02.2021 of the grant-in-aid
sanctioned
to
the
petitioner
by
the
Licensing Authority/District Magistrate,
Saharanpur, is not a subject matter of
challenge,
this
Court
refrains
from
commenting on the merits of the said order
of
cancellation.
Consequently,
the
petitioner is merely aggrieved by the
demand of 10% of the total refund amount
as a condition for disposal of the
representation only. This Court finds that
the concept of demanding or depositing of
a portion of the demanded money as a precondition for hearing is not uncommon in
tax laws or under the general laws for that
matter as we have the Consumer Protection
Act (Please see Proviso to section 19 or
section 51 of the Act) or the RERA Act,
2016 (please see section 43(5) of the Act).
However, in most of the cases as is
prevalent under the Income Tax Laws, GST
Laws, or the Customs Laws, these precondition for hearing is basically at the
stage of an Appellate forum and not before
the original adjudicating authority. Further,
most significantly these conditions of
depositing a portion of demanded money
for hearing of the appeal is found to be
under specific law, for example we have
specific sections for pre-deposit under
Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, Section
129E of the Customs Act, 1962 or we had
section 35F of the Central Excise Act or
section 107(6) or section 112(8) of the
CGST Act, 2017. Thus, it can be safely
deduced from the said analogy that demand
of a portion of demanded money as a precondition for hearing is borne from the
statute itself and in all the cases the said
pre-condition is imposed at the appellate
stage, i.e the time when the duty or demand
comes to be adjudicated upon by the
original administrative or quasi-judicial
body and most importantly the demand is
not in a fluid state.

(15) In the present case, this Court
finds that the demand to deposit 10% of the
total grant-in-aid concession provided to
the
petitioner,
for
hearing
of
the
representation is neither founded in the
statute nor the same is at an appellate stage.
Learned Standing Counsel is unable to
point out any provision under law under
which the State Government/opposite party
No.1 would had demanded the pre-deposit
for disposal of the representation of the
petitioner. Further, this Court is unable to
appreciate the conduct of the opposite
parties in demanding the said pre-deposit at
the belated stage of April, 2023, especially
when the representation had been pending
since December, 2020.
3 All. Ashok Gandhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251

(16) Further, this Court finds that the
impugned order dated 24.04.2023 and
consequential
order
dated
26.05.2023
demanding deposit of 10% of the total
amount of grant-in-aid has been passed by
the opposite party nos.1 and 3, respectively,
without any reasoning or affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
This Court need not burden this Judgment,
with various case laws on the subject that
reasoning is the soul and hallmark of any
judicial or administrative orders and a part
of fair procedure. Suffice to say that the
Apex Court in the case of Kranti
Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed
Khan : (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the
Apex Court, while dealing with the
requirement of passing reasoned order by
an authority whether administrative, quasijudicial or judicial, has after applying the
earlier declarations of law in this regard,
summarized as under :-

"...Summarizing
the
above
discussion, this Court holds:

"(a) In India the judicial trend
has always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not
only be done it must also appear to be done
as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial
or
even
administrative
power.

(e)
Reasons
reassure
that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become
as indispensable a component of a decision
making process as observing principles of
natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial
and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process
of judicial review by superior Courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in
all countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the life blood of judicial
decision making justifying the principle
that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as different as
the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one common
purpose which is to demonstrate by reason
that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important
for sustaining the litigants' faith in the
justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement
for
both
judicial
accountability and transparency.

(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about his/
her decision making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent
or
to
principles
of
incrementalism.

(l)
Reasons
in
support
of
decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubberstamp reasons' is not to be equated with a
valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision making not only
makes the judges and decision makers less
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prone to errors but also makes them subject
to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100
Harward Law Review 731-737).

(n) Since the requirement to
record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision making, the
said requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and was
considered
part
of
Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553,
at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of
Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the
Court referred to Article 6 of European
Convention
of
Human
Rights
which
requires, adequate and intelligent reasons
must be given for judicial decisions.

(o)
In
all
common
law
jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the future.
Therefore,
for
development
of
law,
requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a
part of Due Process."

(17) Further, this Court finds that
opposite parties no. 1 and 3 before passing
the impugned orders demanding a deposit
of 10% of the grant-in-aid have not
afforded a reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. There is no
quarrel on the aspect that a demand of
payment of 10% of the grant-in-aid does
give rise to civil consequences and would
cause serious prejudice to the rights of the
petitioner. In any case, an opportunity of
being heard is one of the most important
component
of
"principle
of
Natural
Justice". The Apex Court in Dharampal
Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE : (2015) 8 SCC 519
: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 489 at page 537
has held as under:

"35.
From
the
aforesaid
discussion, it becomes clear that the
opportunity to provide hearing before
making any decision was considered to be
a
basic
requirement
in
the
court
proceeding. Later on, this principle was
applied to other quasi-judicial authorities
and other tribunals and ultimately it is
now clearly laid down that even in the
administrative actions, where the decision
of the authority may result in civil
consequences, a hearing before taking a
decision is necessary."

(18) Be that as it may, it is a trite law
that no order prejudicing the interest of a
person resulting in civil consequences can
be passed without affording an opportunity
of hearing. It is not the case of opposite
parties that opportunity of hearing was
afforded to the petitioner or that the present
case is such wherein notice of hearing is to
be dispensed with. This Court finds that no
opportunity of hearing was provided to the
petitioner before the passing of the
impugned order dated 24.04.2023 and
consequential order dated 26.05.2023,
whereby the petitioner had been directed to
deposit Rs. 40,75,035.90 as and towards
pre-deposit
for
hearing
of
their
representation dated 03.12.2021.

(19) As a sequel to above, the
impugned order dated 24.04.2023 passed
by
the
opposite
party
No.1
and
consequential
order
dated
26.05.2023
passed by the opposite party no.3-District
Magistrate,
Saharanpur,
cannot
be
sustained in the eyes of law and as such the
same are hereby quashed. Opposite party
no.1
shall
consider
and
decide
the
representation of the petitioner dated
03.12.2021 filed against the order dated
05.02.2021 by a speaking and reasoned
order, without insisting for any pre-deposit
from the petitioner, expeditiously, say,
within a period of three months from the
3 All. M/s Jaya Traders Vs. Addl. Commissioner Grade-II & Anr.
253
date of production of certified copy of this
order.

(20) It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the present case in any manner
and it is open for the parties to agitate
their rights and liabilities, if any, before
the competent authority, as may be
permissible under law.

(21) The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ Tax No. 1022 of 2021
With
Writ Tax No. 1019 of 2021
With
Writ Tax No. 1020 of 2021
With
Writ Tax No. 1021 of 2021
With
Writ Tax No. 1023 of 2021

M/s Jaya Traders ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Grade-II & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aditya Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Goods and Services Tax Act,
2003-Sections 31 &129-Once the petitioner
has failed to prove the true/ actual movement of
the goods from West Bengal / Assam to Delhi,
the seizure proceedings cannot be said to be
unjustified-therefore, accompanying tax invoices
and other documents cannot said to be
genuine-glaring example of organized tax
evasion- Sec 129 of the GST Act -any
person
transports
any
goods
-
in
contravention of the Act - liable to be
detained or seized- tax invoice has to be
issued in terms of Section 31 of the Act, -
intentionally undervalued the goods to
take wrong advantage of Rule 138 which
dispense the requirement of e-way bill
accompany
the
goods-
the
seizure
proceedings
cannot
be
said
to
be
unjustified.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. S/s S.K. Trading Co. & anr. Vs Additional
Commissioner Grade -2 (Appeal) & anr.(Writ Tax
No. 1464 of 2022)

2. M/s Maa Aabe Vs St. of UP, Neutral Citation
No. 2024: AHC: 158372-DB

3. M/s Shamhu Saran Agarwal & Co.Vs
Additional Commissioner Grade -2, Neutral
Citation No. 2024:AHC:15975.

4. K.P. Sugandh Ltd. Vs St. of Chhattisgarh,
2020 NTN (Vol. 74) 372

5. Best Sellers (Cochin) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant St.
Tax Officer, 2021 NTN (Vol 75) -360

6. Sameer Mat Industries & anr. Vs St. of Kerala
& ors., 2018 NTN (vol 66) -69

7. M/s Ghata Mehandipur Balaji Grinding Works
Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax, UP
Govt. Lucknow (Trade Tax Revision No. 15 of
2014) decided on 25.3.2014

8. St. of Karn. Vs M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading
Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2023) decided
on 13.3.2023

9. M/s Shiv Trading Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (Writ
Tax No. 1421 of 2022) decided on 28.11.2023

10. M/s Radha Fragrance Vs U.O.I.& ors. (Writ
tax No. 427 of 2019)