South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the demand notices for retrospective levy has been issued to the petitioner on 07.06.2012 (Annexure - P/1) and 12.01.2012 (Annexure - P/2) by respondent No.2 - Municipal Corporation, Korba which is unsustainable and bad in law.

On the other hand learned State counsel would support the order impugned and submit that the demand notice is nothing but a demand of compliance of property tax which was payable by the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned notices with utmost circumspection.

Be that as it may, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the plea / make representation before the respondent No. 2 - Municipal Corporation, Korba who, in turn, shall consider and decide the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order keeping in view the decision rendered by this Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh WP(T) 4 OF 2012, decided on 22.01.2018.

However, the petitioner would be free to approach the Court if any adverse order is passed against him.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).