[2025:RJ-JP:22171-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8132/2025 Hotel Maya International Jaipur, Through Its Manager Shri M.p. Sharma S/o Shri B.r. Sharma Aged About 53 Years, R/o A-1 Jai Singh Highway Bani Park, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Secretary, Department Of Urban Development Housing And Local Self Government Secretariat Jaipur. 3. Deputy Commissioner, (Civil Lines Zone), Jaipur Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur. 4. Revenue Officer (Civil Lines Zone), Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Heritage Jaipur. 5. Assessor, Urban Development Tax (Civil Lines Zone), Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Heritage Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Yogesh Pujari for Mr.Susheel Pujari For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 27/05/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 30.04.2025. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner is in a hotel business and is running a marriage garden. There was dispute with regard to payment of Urban Development Tax for the year 2007 to 2017. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition i.e. D.B.Civil Writ Petition [2025:RJ-JP:22171-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8132/2025] No.7076/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2024 with directions that the petitioner shall approach the Assessor of Urban Development Tax with the objections and the respondent shall decide the objections in accordance with law. As per the petitioner, he has filed objections and the same are pending. The impugned notice has been issued calculating the tax due since 2017-18 to 2025-26. The objection raised is that inspite of pending objections, tax for the year 2017 has been included in the notice. 3. It is an admitted case that after filing of the reply to notice no action has been taken by the respondent. Petitioner is relegated to remedies for redressal of grievance that the earlier order passed by this Court has not been complied. No cause of action arises for the petitioner to file a writ petition against the impugned notice at this stage, moreso when there is a statutory remedy available in case an order is passed or demand is created. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/18