U P CONGRESS COMMITTEE THRU PRESIDENT RAJ BABBAR L Vs. STATE OF U P THRU CHIEF SECY GOVERNMENT OF U P & O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is alleged in the writ petition that opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 had issued demand notice for depositing the house tax to the tune of Rs.51,49,066/- of the building in question without making any assessment for fixation of tax. However, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 had submitted that the assessment has already been done, after giving proper notice to the petitioner.? Thus, this writ petition is not maintainable. However, the statement given by the learned counsel for opposite parties has been denied by learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Under such circumstance, we direct the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 to file a counter affidavit stating all the facts supported with the documents, so that reply can be given by the petitioner.

(3.) As prayed by learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 3 & 4, let this case be listed on 201.2018 as fresh. No coercive steps shall be taken till next date of listing.