IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT TAX NO. 1141 OF 2021

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
DISTRICT: GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR
DISH TV INDIA LIMITED … PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

LIST OF CONTENTIONS:
Rule of Procedure: Laches or delay cannot be applied in present
case
a. Present is a purely question of law whether the Respondents have
authority and jurisdiction to levy tax in view of legislative prohibition
under Section 66D, Article 265, Article 14 and 19(1)(g). There is no
factual dispute involved.The issue is clearly absence of authority and
not of misconstruction or procedural error.
(i) Radhey Shyam v. The Union of India & Ors. Para No. 4.
(ii) Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation & Ors. (2013)1 SCC 353 Para No.
13,14.
b. Respondents lost their right to initiate assessment under Section 73(1)
of 1994 Act as 18 months period expired on 19.02.2019 from Service
Tax return of 19.08.2017. No right accrued in favour of Respondents
during the intervening period which could be lost if the Petition is
allowed.
(i) Bilatun Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors. Para No. 38
(ii) Ramchandra Shankar, Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
(1974)1 SCC 317 Para No. 10.
c. With the passage of time the clarity crept in and no ambiguity is
caused with regard to administration of justice.
d. Petitioner did not waive any of its rights and controverted all the
Notices promptly as described in the foregoing paragraphs. No
corresponding right matured or crystalized in favour of Respondents.

e. The Respondents have not been placed in any position of advantage

by no commission/omission of the Petitioner. The actions of the
Respondents are void-ab-initio and without jurisdiction and authority
from inception, did not obtain legitimacy or jurisdiction due to
passage of times.
(i) Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. v. District Board,
Bhojpur & Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 598 Para No. 13.
(ii) Tilokchand and Motichand and Ors. Vs. H.B. Munshi and Ors.
AIR1970SC898, (1969)1SCC110 Para 37
f. The rule of procedure for laches should be applied on case-to-case
basis and in case where no third party right accrued, the procedural
rule of laches should not be applied.
i. Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation & Ors. (2013)1 SCC 353
ii. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22
November, 1970 AIR 898 Para
Explanation of delay sufficient
g. After 19.02.2019 Respondents loss the right under Section 73(1) due
to limitation. Thus, the Petitioner under such circumstances was
compelled to believe that the Respondents have abandoned the
proceedings/investigation initiated vide summons dated 26.10.2017
and notice dated 15.11.2017.
h. Suo Moto Writ 3/2020 period from 15.03.2020 till today stood
excluded.