Mridul Sharma vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Mridul Sharma, challenged a demand of Rs. 5,96,217/- plus GST of Rs. 1,07,320/- for non-construction fee. The petitioner argued that the initial allotment of the plot was in favour of Mrs. Manju Sharma on 16.10.2015, with a 5-year construction period. The petitioner purchased the plot on 27.10.2020, and ownership transfer was effected on 07.12.2020. A registered sale deed was executed on 17.11.2020. The petitioner contended she is not liable for the fee prior to the sale deed date, and the demand lacks specificity regarding the period of liability. Representations were filed on 07.08.2022 and 10.10.2022 against this demand.
Held
The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed representations against the demand and that the decision-making process by the authorities was still incomplete. The Court was of the considered opinion that calling for a reply from the respondents would only delay the decision. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner's representations dated 07.08.2022 and 10.10.2022. This decision was to be passed in a reasoned order within a period of 6 weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding her liability for the non-construction fee or the specificity of the demand.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is liable for the non-construction fee prior to the date of the registered sale deed dated 17.11.2020, as per the terms of the allotment and transfer of ownership under the Land Pooling Scheme. 2. Whether the demand for non-construction fee is valid and sufficiently specific regarding the period for which the petitioner is liable. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that liability for the non-construction fee should only commence from the date of the registered sale deed (17.11.2020), as she acquired ownership on that date. She also argued that the demand was not specific about the period of liability. The petitioner relied on the terms of the initial allotment and the subsequent transfer of ownership. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State of Punjab and others (respondents).
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:127513-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(122)
CWP-22069-2023 Decided on : 03.10.2023 Mridul Sharma ……Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab & others
……Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (s).
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is regarding the demand on account of non- construction fee as reflected in the online noting dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-7) maintained by the respondent-Authority to the tune of Rs.5,96,217/- plus GST of Rs.1,07,320/-.
It is the case of the petitioner that vide representations dated 07.08.2022 and 10.10.2022 (Annexures P-8 & P-9) objection had been raised to the said demand of non-construction fee on account of the fact that the initial allotment was in favour of one Mrs.Manju Sharma under the Land Pooling Scheme on 16.10.2015 (Annexure P-3) and the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.