IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.16525 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.9.2011 Vijay Kumar -----Petitioner v. State of Haryana & others -----Respondents & connected case being CWP No.16526 of 2011 Sidh Prakash & others -----Petitioners v. State of Haryana & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.16525 and 16526 of 2011, as common issue is involved in both the petitions. 2. C.W.P. No.16525 of 2011 seeks quashing of notices dated 26.6.2004, 25.11.2004 and 8.8.2011 seeking to recover sales tax dues of M/s Chawla International, District Kurukshetra. C.W.P. No.16525 of 2011 3. Case of the petitioner is that there was outstanding liability of M/s Chawla International from whom the petitioner had purchased 12 kanal of land which was sold further in the year 2001. In the year 2004, the liability of M/s Chawla International was sought to be fastened on the petitioner on the ground that he had entered into an agreement to the effect that he has taken over the liability of the said firm. According to the petitioner, the document relied upon was never executed. The petitioner sent reply dated 4.7.2004 but since fresh notice was received, the petitioner filed suit for injunction which was dismissed as not maintainable, which order has been upheld by this Court in S.A.O. No.37 of 2011 decided on 3.6.2011. Thereafter, impugned notice dated 8.8.2011 has been issued seeking to effect recovery only on the ground of rejection of plaint, without considering the defence of the petitioner put forward in reply to the effect that it had no liability of M/s Chawla International. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of proceeding to effect recovery without considering the reply of the petitioner was clearly arbitrary. On merits, the petitioner has not taken over the liability. 6. We are of the view that instead of going into the merits of the case, it will be appropriate that we direct the recovering authority, respondent No.2 to first pass a speaking order on the defence of the petitioner, if any pleaded by him and 2 C.W.P. No.16525 of 2011 thereafter, proceed for effecting the recovery in accordance with law. The petitioner will also be at liberty to file fresh reply within 15 days. Order may be passed by respondent No.2 within one month, thereafter. 7. Since we have not considered it necessary to issue notice before passing the above order, if the respondents are aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to move this Court. The petitions are disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE September 06, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3