HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2003 (M/S) Smt. Savitri Devi Prop. M/s Maa Durge Brick Field ….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Finance & another ….. Respondents Mr. Sayed Nadeem, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. And Writ Petition No. 280 of 2004 (M/S) Smt. Savitri Devi Prop. M/s Maa Durge Brick Field ….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Finance & another ….. Respondents Mr. Sayed Nadeem, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 10th June, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions is same, the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. The writ petition no. 1190/2003 was filed by the petitioner against the show cause notice dated 27.11.2003 given to the petitioner by the Trade Tax Authority by which certain taxes were to be recovered by the tax authority in Uttarakhand for importing bricks from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand. The petitioner challenged the said notice stating that it is not manufacturing the bricks in Uttar Pradesh but in Uttarakhand itself and, therefore it is not liable to pay the tax. The writ petition no. 1190/2003 (M/S) was admitted on 11.12.2003 and the following order was passed: “Heard. Admit. Notices on behalf of respondents have been accepted by learned Standing Counsel, who prays for and is allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. In the meantime the petitioner shall be permitted to transport the bricks in the State of Uttaranchal, as the petitioner is resident of State of Uttaranchal. The petitioner is allowed to carry-on inter-state trade or business in accordance with the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act and the Uttaranchal Sales Tax Act.” By Virtue of the said order the petitioner continued to import bricks without paying the tax. Consequently thereafter a scheme was introduced by the State of Uttarakhand known as ‘Samadhan” which was for the brick manufactures of Uttarakhand only. It is an admitted case of both the parties that under the said scheme in case it was applicable to the petitioner, certain benefits regarding payment of taxes were being provided to the petitioner. The petitioner claims the benefits of the said scheme whereas the State of Uttarakhand has taken a categorical stand that the said scheme is only applicable to those manufactures who are doing manufacturing in Uttarakhand and since the petitioner is manufacturing the Pilibhit (Uttar Pradesh), the petitioner is not covered under the said scheme. The petitioner, therefore, filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 280/2004 (M/S) in which following interim order was passed: “Heard. Admit. Issue notice. On 11.12.2003 following order was passed by this court in writ petition no. 1190 (M/S) of 2003. “Heard. Admit. Notices on behalf of respondents have been accepted by learned Standing Counsel who prays for and is allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. List thereafter. In the meantime the petitioner shall be permitted to transport the bricks in the State of Uttaranchal, as the petitioner is resident of State of Uttaranchal. The petitioner is allowed to carry-on inter-state trade or business in accordance with the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act and the Uttaranchal Sales Tax Act.” The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the order dt. 11.12.2003 Samadhan Yojna has not been made applicable to the petitioner, so far as the payment of the taxes are concerned. Respondents are directed to comply the order dt. 11.12.2003 or to show cause by the next date. Standing counsel prays for and is granted 3 weeks time to file counter affidavit the petitioner may file a rejoinder affidavit within 3 weeks thereafter. Put up for orders after the exchange of the pleadings.” Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid two interim orders, the petitioner continues to carry on its business. It is a settled principle of law that mere issuance of a show cause notice does not give a person a right to file writ petition and the writ petition no. 1190/2003 (M/S) at this stage is totally premature. It is also not a ground made by the petitioner that show cause notice dated 27.11.2003, which is the subject matter of the writ petition no. 1190/2003 (M/S), is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is a clear stand of the petitioner that it is manufacturing the bricks in Uttarakhand itself. Hence, since the validity of the show cause notice has not been challenged on the ground of jurisdiction, the petitioner must go before the authority which has issued the show cause notice dated 27.11.2003. Hence, the writ petition no. 1190/2003 (M/S) is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner must file its reply before the tax authority within a period of three weeks form today. Since the writ petition no. 1190/2003 (M/S) is dismissed and the cause of action of another writ petition i.e. writ petition no. 280/2004 (M/S) is basically a fall out of the grievance of the petitioner raised in the writ petition no. 1190/2003 (M/S), it is also fit and proper that the petitioner may raise his grievance before the tax authority as to whether the ‘Samadhan Scheme’ is applicable in the case of the petitioner or not. The tax authority shall pass a speaking order on the reply of show cause notice submitted by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner. After passing a speaking order and determining the issue which have been raised in the present writ petitions, the tax authorities are at liberty to pass any consequential orders. The interim order dated 11.12.2003 and 19.4.2004 passed in writ petition no. 1190/2003 (M/S) and writ petition no. 280/2004 (M/S) are hereby vacated. With these observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 10.6.2009 Avneet