Case Law Details
Saffron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court, in the case of Saffron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors., has granted interim protection from the recovery of advertisement tax.
The case revolves around the appellant’s writ petition seeking distinct relief compared to civil suits, which were also filed by the appellant. The High Court’s order dismissing the writ petition without considering its merits led to an appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that their pleas were unique and deserved individual consideration.
The prayers made by the appellant in the writ petition include challenging the recovery certificate, seeking a refund of advance advertisement tax, and commanding non-recovery of tax post the U.P. Act No.1 of 2017. The High Court’s failure to assess these prayers separately resulted in the Supreme Court setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration.
The appellant had withdrawn two civil suits, emphasizing the distinct nature of the relief sought in the writ petition. The Supreme Court acknowledged this and directed the High Court to review the writ petition on its own merits.
The court, considering the interest of justice, continued the interim protection granted earlier until the disposal of the writ petition. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 11.03.2024 for expedited consideration without separate notices.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Saffron Communication Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors. signifies a crucial interim protection against advertisement tax recovery. The court’s emphasis on individual consideration of prayers and the remand to the High Court reflects a commitment to justice. The continued interim protection ensures a fair process until the final disposal, showcasing the court’s dedication to expeditious resolution.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in Writ Tax No.813/2019, the appellant is before this Court.
We have heard learned counsel Mr. Nishit Aggarwal for the appellant and Ms. Sarvshree, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
It was submitted that the writ petition preferred by the appellant sought prayers distinct from the relief sought for by the appellant in Civil Suit No.60/2019 and other civil suits. Therefore the High Court ought to have considered the prayers made by the appellant herein before the High Court on its own merits instead of simply dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the non-consideration of the writ petition on merits has resulted in prejudice to the appellant.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that there is no merit in this appeal.
We have perused the prayers sought for by the appellant in the writ petition which are as under:
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 12.6.2019 issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandumus commanding the respondents to refund the amount of advertisement tax paid in advance by the petitioner under the agreement (Annexure No.3, 4 and 5 to the writ petition) for the periiod commencing 1.7.2017 till completion of the agreement i.e. 13.2.2018 in first two agreement (i.e. annexure no.3 and 4 to the writ petition) and 22.2.2018 in case of 3rd agreement (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition).
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of amndamus commanding the respondents not to recover advertisement tax from the petitioner for the period after 1.7.2017 i.e. after commencement of U.P. Act No.1 of 2017.
iv. Issue any other writ order or direction, as this Hon’ble Couort may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
v. Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioners.
These prayers ought to have been considered by the High Court since we find that these prayers are distinct to the reliefs sought for by the appellant in the suits filed by them. Moreover two of the suits have been withdrawn by the appellant. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to consider the writ petition on its own merits.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court on 05.08.2019 had granted an interim protection to the effect that no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant herein for any further recovery towards advertisement tax as a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) has already been realized from the appellant and therefore the said interim order may be continued pending disposal of the writ petition.
By way of response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if the interim protection is to be continued then the appellant would procrastinate in the disposal of the writ petition.
In the circumstances, we find that the interest of justice would be subserved if the interim order dated 05.08.2019 is continued till the disposal of the writ petition. Since we are remanding the matter to the High Court, we direct the parties who are represented by their respective counsel to appear before the High Court on 11.03.2024 without expecting any separate notices from the High Court and bring to the notice of the concerned Roster Bench the remand of the matter so that it could be considered and disposed of expeditiously as possible. With the cooperation of the parties it is expected that the High Court will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
Author Bio
