Cost Of Rs. 1 Lakh Imposed For Misusing Writ Remedy To Avoid Timely Payment Of Property Tax Since Past 3 Years: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has imposed the cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the assessee for using writ remedy to avoid timely payment of property tax for the past 3 years. The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla has observed that merely because the directions may have been given to the State Government to decide the petitioner's representation, it cannot be said that there is any doubt as to the finality of the order dated 05.09.2022. In any case, it is clearly visible to the Court that the petitioner has been pursuing only one goal i.e. to avoid timely payment of property tax. He has succeeded in that exercise for more than three years already. In that process he has approached the Court, now for the fifth time with a challenge raised in the writ petition that is found to be wholly bogus. The writ petition is an abuse of process of law. The case arose from an assessment order dated 05.09.2022, passed by the Municipal Commissioner imposing property tax amounting to ₹4,45,208 with effect from 01.04.2014. The assessment was made pursuant to earlier directions issued by the High Court in Writ Tax No. 762 of 2022, wherein the petitioner had been granted liberty to file objections before the competent authority. Despite the assessment order, the petitioner did not immediately challenge it. Instead, subsequent writ petitions were filed questioning recovery notices and again indirectly challenging the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. In Writ Tax No. 1564 of 2025, the Court had specifically noted that the premises of the petitioner were situated in Ward No. 25 of the Municipal Corporation, Firozabad, and that the petitioner had failed to place any material disputing that finding. Thereafter, a third writ petition directly challenging the assessment order dated 05.09.2022 was dismissed on 29.05.2025. The Court held that once the earlier petition had been decided without questioning the validity of the assessment order, a belated challenge after nearly two and a half years could not be entertained. Undeterred, the petitioner filed a fourth writ petition seeking consideration of a representation. Though the Court directed the State Government to decide the representation, it did not reopen the issue of finality of the assessment order. Upon rejection of that representation, the petitioner approached the High Court for the fifth time, once again questioning the jurisdiction of the Nagar Nigam, Firozabad to levy property tax. Before the Court, the petitioner argued that neither the Industrial Development Cooperative Society nor the State Government had transferred the land to the Municipal Corporation, and therefore, the Corporation lacked jurisdiction to impose property tax. The respondents strongly opposed the petition, contending that the repeated filings were aimed solely at delaying payment of dues. The Bench observed that the assessment order dated 05.09.2022 had attained finality long ago and that the dismissal of earlier writ petitions had conclusively settled the issue. The Court noted that merely because a representation was directed to be decided did not create any doubt about the finality of the assessment. In strong terms, the Court remarked that the petitioner had been pursuing only one goal — to avoid timely payment of property tax — and had succeeded in delaying payment for over three years by repeatedly approaching the Court. Holding the present petition to be “wholly bogus” and a clear abuse of the process of law, the Bench dismissed the writ petition with an exemplary cost of ₹1 lakh. Case Details Case Title: M/S Shanti Glass Industries Versus State of UP Citation: JURISHOUR-169-HC-2026(Allah) Case No.: WRIT TAX No. - 1244 of 2026 Date: 23/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Radhey Shyam Dwivedi Counsel For Respondent: Abhinava Krishna Srivastava Click Here To Read Order Read More: GST ITC | Proper Officer Has Duty To Prevent Tax Evasion, May Issue SCN: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Interfere In SCN But Quashes Order

Cost Of Rs. 1 Lakh Imposed For Misusing Writ Remedy To Avoid Timely Payment Of Property Tax Since Past 3 Years: Allahabad High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 24 June, 2026

Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT

Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT

No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 24 June, 2026

Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT

Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories