Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 155034 (ALL)

M/S TRIMURTI VISION CABLE TV NETWORK THRU. PROPRIETOR MRS. KAVITA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF STATE TAXES LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

WTAX/703/2025 · 2025-07-28

Manish Kumar, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43312-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 703 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Trimurti Vision Cable Tv Network Thru. Proprietor Mrs. Kavita Srivastava And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of State Taxes Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aakash Singh,Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard. 2. This matter has been taken up on an urgency being shown. However, the husband of the petitioner who was detained as informed, was released after a cheque was issued for satisfying the dues of entertainment tax. The original orders impugned are appealable, but, no appeal has been preferred yet. 3. We are not ready to accept the explanation offered that the papers were handed over to one Shri Shashank Singh for filing an appeal but, he did not do so and unfortunately, he died in February, 2025. The writ petition does not disclose as to on which date, the papers were hand over to late Shri Shashank Singh, Advocate. We do not believe that if the papers were handed over to Shri Shashank Singh in the year 2023 or early 2024 and if he did not do anything, the petitioner would have sat over the matter. 4. We see no reason to proceed any further. If otherwise permissible, the petitioner may avail the remedies prescribed in law especially as, the petitioner admits to having knowledge of the order imposing tax upon him in 2023 under the Right to Information Act. 5. If the petitioner claims that certain tax has been deposited which has not been taken into account while issuing the recovery certificate, only to this extent, he could apprise the concerned authorities, who may get the facts verified and if the due amount is liable to be revised, they may do the needful. Apart from it, no other direction could be issued. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Manish Kumar, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 28.7.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench