Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rina Rani Rustogi Vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. - 1044 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/10/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Rina Rani Rustogi Vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)

Introduction: The Allahabad High Court has recently made a significant ruling regarding the entitlement of a family to insurance money under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax (UPVAT) Act. In this case, the petitioner, Rina Rani Rustogi, sought insurance money under a Group Insurance Policy following her husband’s death. This article provides a detailed analysis of the court’s judgment and its implications for similar cases.

Detailed Analysis: The case revolves around the claim made by Rina Rani Rustogi, whose husband, Ajay Rustogi, tragically passed away in a road accident on October 9, 2013. Rina Rustogi claimed that her husband was a registered dealer under the UPVAT Act and that his registration was still valid at the time of his death. She sought payment of insurance money amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the Group Insurance Policy, which had been purchased by the State Government for the benefit of registered dealers, as per a circular issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow.

The State-respondents contested the claim, asserting that the deceased had applied to cancel his registration before his death. According to the State’s argument, the application to cancel the registration was processed on March 18, 2013. Notably, the State’s version of events stated that this cancellation order was uploaded on the revenue authorities’ website on December 24, 2013.

The key point of contention is whether the deceased’s registration was valid on the date of his death. The petitioner disputes the State’s version, contending that her husband had initially obtained registration in the name of M/s Ganpati Agency back in 2006. This registration was only canceled on December 16, 2013, which the petitioner insists was the date that the cancellation came to be posted on the website. According to the petitioner, the registration granted to her husband was valid from February 21, 2006, to December 24, 2013.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031