SATYAM SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is assessment order dtd. 27/7/2024 passed by respondent No. 3 (the Executive Engineer). He clarifies, the order is of provisional assessment. He submits, the short point is that said respondent could not have passed the order as the authority had not made the inspection. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Executive Engineer v. M/s. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 108. Paragraph-23 of the judgment (Supreme Today print) is reproduced below.

(2.) Dr. Devendra Kumar Tiwari, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (the supply company). He submits, inspections assessments are made by the Assistant Engineer and based on the report, the assessments are made by the Executive Engineer, who is the assessing officer. This was done in petitioner's case.

(3.) Before us petitioner has challenged the provisional assessment order. On query we are told, petitioner has not filed objection and final assessment order not yet passed.