M/S Acute Exhibit And Promotion vs. State Of Hp And Others
Held
The Court held that while the withdrawal of permission was indeed ordered without notice or opportunity to the petitioner, strict compliance with the principles of natural justice might not be possible given the short, 20-day duration of the permission. The Court also noted that the permission was akin to a license, which can be revoked. However, the Court examined the justification for withdrawal and found prima facie evidence from a Joint Inspection Report, supported by a photograph showing the petitioner's representative present, indicating the petitioner occupied a larger area than permitted. Therefore, the Court upheld the Municipal Council's action in withdrawing the permission. Regarding the refund, the Court found no clause in the original permission granting a right of forfeiture. Consequently, the Municipal Council was directed to refund the proportionate amount of the permission fee for the period the petitioner could not utilize the land. The Court clarified that if the Municipal Council, after an inquiry with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, proves occupation of more space, the repayable amount would be reduced. The amount of tax paid would not be refunded.
Facts
M/s Acute Exhibit and Promotion (the petitioner) was granted permission by the Municipal Council (4th respondent) to use 15,000 square feet of land at Dhalpur ground for a Trade Promotion and Awareness Campaign for Environment Conservation for 20 days, from June 25, 2019, to July 14, 2019. The permission was subject to payment of ₹7,20,360/-, including GST and TCS. Subsequently, the Municipal Council issued proceedings on June 29, 2019, withdrawing the permission, alleging the petitioner occupied approximately 26,270 square feet, nearly double the allotted area, based on a Joint Inspection Report. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this withdrawal, arguing it was done without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court noted that approximately 4 days of the permitted period had expired when the permission was withdrawn.
Key Issues
1. Whether the withdrawal of permission by the Municipal Council, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice, and if so, whether the impugned order can be set aside on this ground, considering the limited duration of the permission? 2. Whether the Municipal Council is obligated to refund the proportionate amount of the permission fee to the petitioner for the period the land could not be utilized, given that the permission was withdrawn before its expiry? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the withdrawal of permission was arbitrary and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Respondents' arguments: The Municipal Council argued that the withdrawal was justified due to the petitioner's alleged occupation of double the allotted land area, as evidenced by a Joint Inspection Report. Regarding the refund, the Municipal Council contended that as per the terms and conditions, the petitioner would not be entitled to a refund of the proportionate amount.
Sections Cited
Section 122, Section 123, Section 124, Section 125, Section 126, Section 127, Section 128, Section 129, Section 130, Section 131, Section 132, Section 133, Section 134, Section 135, Section 136, Section 137, Section 138, Section 139, Section 140, Section 141, Section 142, Section 143, Section 144, Section 145, Section 146, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 150, Section 151, Section 152, Section 153, Section 154, Section 155, Section 156, Section 157, Section 158, Section 159, Section 160, Section 161, Section 162, Section 163, Section 164, Section 165, Section 166, Section 167, Section 168, Section 169, Section 170, Section 171, Section 172, Section 173, Section 174, Section 175, Section 176, Section 177, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180, Section 181, Section 182, Section 183, Section 184, Section 185, Section 186, Section 187, Section 188, Section 189, Section 190, Section 191, Section 192, Section 193, Section 194, Section 195, Section 196, Section 197, Section 198, Section 199, Section 200, Section 201, Section 202, Section 203, Section 204, Section 205, Section 206, Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section 210, Section 211, Section 212, Section 213, Section 214, Section 215, Section 216, Section 217, Section 218, Section 219, Section 220, Section 221, Section 222, Section 223, Section 224, Section 225, Section 226, Section 227, Section 228, Section 229, Section 230, Section 231, Section 232, Section 233, Section 234, Section 235, Section 236, Section 237, Section 238, Section 239, Section 240
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 1438 of 2019
Date of decision: 03.07.2019 _____________________________________________________ M/s Acute Exhibit and Promotion
…..Petitioner
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others
…Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with M/s J.K. Verma, Ritta Goswami, Adarsh Sharma, Ashwani Sharma and Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.
V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice (Oral)
Aggrieved by the cancellation of permission granted to it for conducting a Trade Fair for promotion of awareness about environment conservation, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.
Heard Ms. Seema K. Guleria, learned Counsel for 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 Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.