Deo Prasad vs. The Zonal Manager East Central Railway

Facts

The petitioner, Deo Prasad, held a license for a multipurpose stall at Rajendra Nagar railway station. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur, issued a letter dated 11.11.2019, increasing the annual license fee from Rs. 22,846/- to Rs. 3,81,000/- for the first three years, with a 10% enhancement for the subsequent two years, effective from 18.12.2018. This increase was based on the authority's assessment of annual sales, made without the petitioner's knowledge. Subsequently, a letter dated 04.02.2020 directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of the revived license fee, including 18% GST, totaling Rs. 5,44,489/-, failing which the license would be cancelled. Another letter dated 06.02.2020 from the Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur, similarly directed the petitioner's partner to deposit the license fee and arrears with GST. The petitioner sought to quash these letters and stay the impugned orders, stating readiness to deposit the fee at the old rate.

Held

The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, reserving liberty to approach the concerned authority for redressal of grievances in accordance with law. The Court granted this permission. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the liberty granted to the petitioner. The Court did not make any specific findings on the merits of the issues raised regarding the increase in license fee or the demand for arrears and GST. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the matter was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the increase in license fee from Rs. 22,846/- to Rs. 3,81,000/- per annum, as per the letter dated 11.11.2019, is sustainable in law, given it was based on an ex-parte assessment and violates the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the demand for arrears of license fee along with 18% GST, totaling Rs. 5,44,489/-, as per the letter dated 04.02.2020, is legally tenable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the significant increase in license fee was arbitrary and made without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as the assessment was conducted behind their back. They contended that the demand for arrears, including GST, was therefore unsustainable. The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit the license fee at the old rate. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (East Central Railway authorities).