JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Aggrieved by recovery certificate dated 30.9.2007 issued by Taxation Officer, Mahrajganj for recovering a sum of Rs. 5,50,349/- from the petitioner towards passenger tax/additional tax and penalty for the period 1.1.2005 to 30.9.2007 and 1.3.2004 to 30.9.2007 in respect to vehicle No. UHX 0328 (Bus), the petitioner has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said recovery certificate. He has also sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to decide his application dated 16.12.2007 for recalling the ex parte order.
2. The petitioner is owner of a bus bearing the aforesaid number which was granted a permanent stage carriage permit on route "Khanuwa-Nautanwa-Thunthibari via Bhagwanpur", which was valid from 24.5.2000 to 23.5.2005. It is said that the vehicle completed 20 years of age on 25.3.2005 and, therefore, the petitioner sold it to a Kabari on 1.4.2005 and intimated about the said sale to Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Mahrajganj the same day through registered post but the receipt issued by the postal department has been misplaced. The Taxation Officer, Mahrajganj (respondent No. 2) issued a recovery certificate for recovery of tax of Rs. 24,145/- and penalty of Rs. 6037/- for the period 1.1.2005 to 30.9.2007 and additional tax of Rs. 4,16,133/- and penalty of Rs. 1,04,034/- for the period 1.3.2004 to 30.9.2007 under Section 20 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1997 Act"). It is said that under Rule 18 it was incumbent upon Taxation Officer to give notice to the registered owner before passing an assessment order but no such notice was served upon the petitioner. The impugned recovery is being made without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. He submitted an application dated 16.12.2007 before respondent No. 2 for recall of ex parte order but no order has been passed thereon.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since liability of additional tax and penalty has been imposed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, the entire assessment proceedings and consequential recovery is void ab initio being in violation of principles of natural justice. As such, unless application of the the petitioner to recall the aforesaid ex parte order is disposed of, no recovery can proceed against him.
4. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary, submitted that once the assessment has been made under the Act and Rules, there is no power of review or recall conferred upon the assessing authority. A statutory remedy is available to the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the 1997 Act, and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in this writ petition as the petitioner has failed to exhaust statutory alternative remedy.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Apex Court's decisions in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. and Satnam Verma v. Union of India and Division Bench decisions of this Court in M.P. Poddar and Co. Sheopur, Varanasi v. Additional Judge (Revisions) Salex Tax Gorakhpur 1982 UPTC-117 Shyam Behari Tewari v. Goods Tax Officer Allahabad 1985 UPTC 638 Ravindra Pal Singh Fatehpur v. Passenger Tax Officer Kanpur 1986 UPTC 839 Feeroz Akhtar Farooqi v. Passenger Tax Officer Allahabad 1988 UPTC 1012 Vijay Kumar Gupta Meerut v. Passenger Tax Officer Meerut 1988 UPTC 1016 and Hasan Raza Atala Allahabad v. Passenger Tax Officer Allahabad and Anr. 1988 UPTC 1030 in order to submit that assessment proceedings if made ex parte the power to recall is inherent in the authority concerned and, therefore, application of the petitioner for recalling ex parte order is maintainable in law and liable to be disposed of by respondent No. 2 even if no specific power for recall or review has been conferred under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that so far as the decisions of the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. (Supra) and Satnam Verma (Supra) are concerned, the same are in respect to ex parte award of the Labour Court and the matter was decided by the Apex Court in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. The Apex Court has nowhere laid down any general principle that whenever an ex parte order is passed, the statutory body would have inherent power to recall or review such order. So far as various judgements of this Court are concerned, it is submitted that in most of the cases, judgment in Grindlays Bank Ltd. (Supra) has been followed and the same would not apply to the proceedings under 1997 Act. It is also contended that where a statutory authority in exercise of statutory powers passes an order, the same cannot be reviewed unless specific power is conferred under the statute upon the authority concerned, otherwise, serious consequences may follow. For example, if it is accepted that power of recall of an ex parte order is inherent, immediately a question would arise as to whether such power can be exercised any time irrespective of any period of limitation, and. if any period of limitation is conceded wherefrom it would be discerned. Again another question would be as to whether the authority would be empowered to condone delay, if any, occurring in filing recall application for the reason that Limitation Act as such would not be applicable to such authorities. It is thus submitted that
8. Payment of tax and additional tax by a person using a transport vehicle in public place is governed by 1997 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Section 4 of 1997 Act provides for imposition of tax. Section 4(2) applicable to a transport vehicle used in any public place reads as under:
(2) Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act no transport vehicle shall be used in any public place in Uttar Pradesh unless a tax at the rate applicable to such motor vehicle, as specified in Part 'D' of the First Schedule has been paid in respect thereof.
(emphasis added)
9. Payment of additional tax is provided under Section 6 of 1997 Act which reads as under:
6. Additional tax on public service vehicle-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act or the rules made thereunder, no public service vehicle, [other than those owned or controlled by a State Transport Undertaking] shall be operated in any public place in Uttar Pradesh unless there has been paid in respect thereof, in addition to the tax payable under Section 4, an additional tax at the rate applicable to such public service vehicle specified in the Fourth Schedule:
Provided that the State Government may, by notification, increase by not more than fifty per cent, the rates of additional tax specified in the said Schedule.
(1-A) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Motor Vehicle registered, or adapted, to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver shall be kept for use without a permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 unless there has been paid in respect thereof in addition to the tax payable under Section 4, an additional tax twenty-five per cent more than the additional tax payable in respect of that category of vehicle under Clause (a) of Article V of the Fourth Schedule:
Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to a Motor Vehicle referred to in Sub-section(3) of Section 66 of the said Act.
(2) The additional tax in respect of a public service vehicle [owned or controlled by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation] shall be levied and paid in accordance with the formula specified in the Fifth Schedule.
3(2-A) The additional tax in respect of a public service vehicle owned or controlled by a State Transport Undertaking other than the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation shall be levied and paid in accordance with the agreement entered into with the concerned States under Sub-section(6) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and where there is no such agreement it shall be levied and paid at the rate given at Serial No. 8 of the table of rates of additional tax under Clause (a) of Article 1 of the Fourth Schedule.
(3) Where a public service vehicle is wholly or partially exempted from the payment of additional tax by or under this Act a surcharge for the purpose of the fund established under Section 8 shall be levied on its operator at the rate of five per cent of the additional tax that would have been payable on such vehicle had it not been so exempted and such, amount shall be credited to the said Fund.
(emphasis added)
10. The period by which tax, additional tax and penalty are to be paid is provided under Section 9 which reads as under:
9. Payment of tax and penalty.--(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 11,-
(i) the tax payable under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 shall be paid at the time of the registration of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Provided that in respect of an old motor vehicle, the tax shall be payable in advance on or before the fifteenth day of January in each year;
(ii) the tax payable under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 shall be payable in advance for each quarter at the time of the registration of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thereafter on or before the fifteenth day of January, April, July and October in each year;
(iii) the additional tax payable under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall be payable in advance on or before the fifteenth day of January, April, July and October in each year;
(iv) (a) the additional tax under Section 6 other than a case to which Sub-clause (b) applies shall be payable in advance on or before fifteenth day of each calendar month at the rate of one-third of the rate specified in the Fourth Schedule;
(b) the additional tax payable under Section 6 in respect of vehicles covered by temporary permit issued for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions, such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings or to carry marriage parties, tourist parties or such other reserved parties shall be paid at the time of issuance of such temporary permit.
(2) When any person transfers a motor vehicle registered in his name to any other person, then without prejudice to the liability of the transfer or in this regard, the transferee shall be liable to pay the arrears of tax, additional tax and penalty, if any, in respect of the motor vehicle so transferred, due on or before the date of its transfer, as if the transferee was the owner of the said motor vehicle during the period for which such tax, additional tax or penalty is due.
(3) Where the tax or additional tax in respect of a motor vehicle is not paid within the period specified in Sub-section (1), in addition to the tax or the additional tax due, a penalty at such rate not exceeding twenty five per cent of the due amount, as may be prescribed, shall be payable, for which the owner and the operator if any shall be jointly and severally liable.
(4) In computing the amount of tax, additional tax or penalty under this Act the amount shall be rounded off to the nearest rupee, that is to say a fraction of a rupee being fifty paise or more shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee and any fraction less than fifty paise shall be ignored.
(emphasis added)
11. Mode of payment of tax is provided under Rule 9 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which is quoted below:
9. Method of payment of tax.--(1) The tax or the additional tax may either be paid in cash to the Taxation Officer or deposited in any treasury of the concerned district through treasury challan under the head "0041-Taxes on Vehicles-102-Receipts under the State Motor Vehicles Taxation Act-01-Gross Receipts" by the owner or operator of the motor vehicle and the receipt or the treasury challan as the case may be, evidencing such payment shall be furnished to the Taxation Officer:
Provided that the tax and additional tax payable under Section 10 of the Act shall be paid either in cash or in Bank Draft payable to Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow at the Tax Collection Centres of the Uttar Pradesh Government situated on the Border:
Provided further that if there is no Tax Collection Centre of Uttar Pradesh Government situated on border on route, it shall be sufficient compliance of the above if the said cash or Bank Draft is deposited in the office of the Taxation Officer situated nearest to the point of entry into the Territory of Uttar Pradesh.
(2) Every person who is required to make a declaration under Rule 7 or additional declaration under Rule 8 shall pay the tax or additional tax due on the motor vehicle at the time of presenting the declaration in respect thereof.
12. Penalty for late payment and additional tax is provided under Rule 24 which reads as under:
24. Penalty for late payment of tax and additional tax.- Where the tax or additional tax in respect of a motor vehicle is not paid within the period specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 9, a penalty at the following rate shall also be payable, as the case may be, in addition to the tax or the additional tax due-
(1) where the delay has been caused in payment of tax payable under Sub-section (1) of Section 4, the penalty shall be rupees two per week or part thereof in respect of two wheelers and rupees five per week or part thereof in respect of vehicles other than two wheelers;
(2) where the delay has been caused in payment of tax payble under Sub-section (2) of Section 4, the penalty shall be rupees fifteen per week or part thereof;
(3) where the delay has been caused in payment of additional tax payable under Section 5 or Section 6, the penalty shall be rupees twenty per week or part thereof.
13. A perusal of various provisions of the Act and Rules makes it abundantly clear that a person who uses a transport vehicle in a public place, shall himself pay tax and additional tax as prescribed in the Act and Rules and there is no provision for any assessment order to be made by the Taxation Officer since the rate of tax, additional tax and penalty at which it has to be paid and the time of payment is prescribed in the Act, Rules and notifications issued thereunder. Moreover, the owner or operator of every motor vehicle has also to submit a declaration before the Taxation Officer as required by Section 13 of the Act and shall also pay tax and additional tax which he is liable to pay as per such declaration. Section 13 of the Act reads as under:
13. Declaration by person keeping vehicle for use.--(1) The owner or operator or every motor vehicle shall make a declaration in respect of it in the prescribed form and shall deliver the declaration within the prescribed time to the Taxation Officer and shall pay to him the tax or the additional tax which he appears by such declaration to be liable to pay in respect of such vehicle, as required by or under this Act.
(2) Where a motor vehicle is altered so as to render the owner or operator thereof liable to payment of enhanced tax or additional tax under Section 14 such owner or operator shall make, within the prescribed time, an additional declaration in the prescribed form showing the nature of the alternation made and shall deliver it to the Taxation Officer and shall pay to him the difference in tax or additional tax payable under Section 14.
14. The period for presentation of a declaration is prescribed in Rule 7 which reads as under:
Presentation of declaration.--(1) Every person who either on the commencement of the Act or thereafter, on becoming possessed of a motor vehicle which becomes liable to tax shall within fifteen days of such vehicle becoming so liable, complete, sign and deliver to the Taxation Officer the declaration in Form A'.
(2) A separate declaration shall be made in respect of every motor vehicle.
15. Thus rate of tax and additional tax. place of payment, manner of payment and period of payment all is prescribed in the Act and Rules which is the liability of the owner or operator of a motor vehicle to observe faithfully and for the said purpose he is not supposed to wait for any order of Taxation Officer. On the contrary, if such a person fails to pay tax or additional tax as required under the Act and Rules, it is an offence under Section 19 of the Act and such person would be liable for punishment for committing such offence. When somebody makes payment of tax and additional tax beyond the period provided under the Act, in such situation, the incumbent would also be liable to pay penalty, the rate whereof is also prescribed in Rule 24 and nothing is left to the discretion of any authority or person to determine or fix the amount of additional tax or penalty other than what is prescribed. In these circumstances, the very assumption on the part of the petitioner that before making order of assessment the Taxation Officer is obliged to issue notice to the petitioner otherwise the proceedings would be rendered illegal, in our view, is wholly without any substance and at least is not borne out from the aforesaid provisions.
16. If the amount of tax, additional tax or penalty, as the case may be is not paid as per the scheme of the statute, the Taxation Officer may proceed to recover such amount as arrears of land revenue and for that purpose only when he calculates the amount, it is in effect a ministerial work and does not involve any judicial or quasi judicial power. Determination of such quantum for which recovery certificate is to be issued is mere mechanical exercise not involving any decision or discretion. Section 20 provides that if the amount is not paid in time it is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. For issuing a recovery certificate only the taxation officer calculates the amount and sends a recovery certificate to the Collector to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue and by no stretch of imagination this exercise by the Taxation Officer can be said to be the assessment proceedings under the statute. Various judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner rendered by the Division Benches of this Court in order to submit that if an ex parte order has been passed the Taxation Officer has inherent power of review, have no application to the proceedings under 1997 Act in view of the complete change in the scheme of earlier statutes which were up for consideration in those cases.
17. Shyam Behari Tewari (Supra) was a case arising out of U.P. Motor Gadi (Mal-Kar) Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "1964 Act") while Ravindra Pal Singh (supra), Feeroz Akhtar Farooqi (Supra), Vijay Kumar Gupta (Supra) and Hasan Raza (Supra) were the cases under U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "1962 Act") and the rules framed thereunder namely, U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri-Kar) Niyamawali, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the " 1962 Rules"). A perusal of 1962 Act and 1964 Act shows that there is substantial change in the scheme of tax and the procedure for its determination and payment. Under 1964 Act Section 12 provides for assessment of tax and Section 13 provides for escaped assessment. Similarly Sections 10(2) and 14 provides for penalty for non payment of tax and in all the aforesaid provisions, the Tax Officer was under an obligation to pass orders after affording opportunity to show cause to the person concerned against whom the order was to be passed. All the orders passed under Section 10(2) and 14 as aforesaid were appealable under Section 18 thereof. Besides. Section 25 conferred power on the Tax Officer or the appellate authority similar to that are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect to certain matters namely enforcing attendance on any person, examining any person on oath or affirmation, compelling the production of any document and issuing commission for examination of any witness of accounts. The aforesaid proceedings were also declared to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 228 and 196 I.P.C.
18. Rule 8 of 1964 Rules provides for procedure for notices to be issued by the authorities and Rules 9 and 10 provide for hearing and disposal of cases and order. It would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 9 and 10 of 1964 Rules as under:
9. Hearing and disposal of the case.--On the date fixed for hearing or on the date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Tax Officer shall take such evidence as may be produced in compliance with the notice and he may also take such other evidence or make such further enquiry as he deems necessary.
10. Order-Every order directing payment of penalty or determining the sum payable to the State Government by the operator by way of tax shall be passed in writing. A copy thereof shall be handed over personally or sent by registered post to the operator concerned or to his agent, if any.
19. Considering the matter in the light of the scheme of the Act which requires Tax Officer to pass assessment order following the principles of natural justice, i.e. after issuing notice and hearing the persons concerned, this Court held in Shyam Behari Tewari (Supra), where proceedings were not held in the aforesaid manner and an ex parte order is passed then such an authority may recall ex parte order on an application submitted by the person concerned and it was held that such power is inherent in the said authority. In Grindlays Bank (Supra) where also similar provisions were there with respect to adjudication of industrial dispute by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, the Apex Court held "In a case of this nature, we are of the view that the Tribunal should be considered as invested with such incidental or ancillary powers unless there is any indication in the statute to the contrary."
20. Similarly the cases which emerged out of proceedings under 1962 Act, there also similar provisions were made under Sections 6(2), 8, 9 and 10 requiring Tax Officer to pass order/assessment order in respect to tax, additional tax and penalty after issuing show cause notice and giving opportunity to the person concerned. All the said orders were appealable under Section 13 of 1962 Act. Section 21 of 1962 Act was pari materia with Section 25 of 1964 Act in so far as it conferred powers of civil court to Tax Officer or the Appellate Authority in respect to certain matters specified therein. 1962 Rules also contained provision with respect to hearing and disposal of case which is pari materia with Rules 9 and 10 of 1964 Rules.
21. Similarly, M.P. Poddar (supra) was also a case under U.P. Sales Tax, 1948 which also related to quasi judicial proceedings before the revisional authority.
22. None of these cases, in our view, therefore, can be Said to be an authority for accepting such a wide proposition as canvassed by learned Counsel for the petitioner that whenever any order of whatever nature is passed by Taxation Officer/Transport Authority, that would be a quasi judicial or judicial order in nature and a show cause notice would be must and such an order can be recalled whenever the person concerned moves an application for recall. The recovery certificate issued under 1997 Act and the exercise undertaken by the Taxation Officer to arrive at the sum to be recovered, is purely an administrative exercise on his part. Therefore, the contention that the aforesaid exercise undertaken by the Taxation Officer is in the nature of assessment proceedings and being quasi judicial the same could not have been completed without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner as such, cannot be accepted. 1997 Act does not contemplate any order of assessment to be passed by Taxation Officer as was the situation in 1962 and 1964 Acts. That being the position, various authorities cited by the petitioner have no application in the present case in view of different statutory provisions involved therein. This relieves us of considering the request of learned Standing Counsel to refer the matter to Larger Bench for reconsideration of those cases.
23. Now we come to the preliminary objection raised by learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has remedy by way of appeal under Section 18 of 1997 Act. Where a person who has paid tax does not intend to use his vehicle for a period of one month or more and surrenders his registration document claiming refund for such period, or where tax already paid by a person is sought to be refunded, he can proceed under Section 12 of 1997 Act. If any order passed by the Taxation Officer under Section 12 with respect to such refund is not to the satisfaction of such person, he may file appeal under Section 18. With respect to any other order no appeal is provided under Section 18. The recovery certificate issued by Taxation Officer, in the case in hand, cannot be said to be an order under Section 12 of 1970 Act, therefore, is not appealable under under 18. Thus, preliminary objection that the petitioner ought to have filed appeal under Section 18 is without any substance and is rejected.
24. However, the matter would not rest. It is true that 1997 Act does not contemplate any order of assessment to be passed by Taxation Officer and the rate of tax, additional tax and penalty being already prescribed thereunder, its computation is only ministerial act. Yet there may be cases where a recovery certificate is issued by Taxation Officer by wrong computation and if an opportunity would have been afforded to the persons concerned before issuing such certificate, he would have placed relevant material for arriving at a correct computation. This exercise could have saved the department from issuing an erratic certificate of recovery and simultaneously would protect the party concerned from being harassed by revenue recovering authorities for enforcing a defective recovery certificate. It is true that under scheme of 1997 Act and Rules framed thereunder, though, there is no specific provision requiring issuance of any show cause notice to the person concerned before issuing recovery certificate under Section 20, but we also find that there is no provision prohibiting the authorities from giving such an opportunity. It cannot be doubted that an order of recovery under Section 20 would result in initiating coercive steps against the alleged defaulter and therefore an order initiating recovery proceeding under Section 20 would affect some kind of civil right of alleged defaulter. It is well settled that where a statute does not provide otherwise or exclude application of principles of natural justice, an order having civil/evil consequences or adverse in nature against a person should not be passed without issuing show cause notice to such a person and giving him opportunity. Bare minimal requirement of principles of natural justice of issuing a show cause notice can be read in such a statute in order to construe the statutory provisions in consonance with fairness and non-arbitrariness and consistent with the principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
25. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India the Apex Court held:
...if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a predecisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will he extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude....
26. In Calcutta Gujarati Education Society and Anr. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors. the Court held entitlement of tenant or occupant to object and file representation with respect to the assessment proceedings of tenanted building which provides opportunity only to the owner: on the ground that if the owner is inactive such an opportunity may be availed by the tenant or occupier who has to bear such actual payment in the absence of otherwise provisions in the Act.
27. In our view, the Taxation Officer must be held to be under an obligation to issue a show cause notice or demand notice containing details of the computation and the amount computed by him for which recovery certificate he intends to issue, the period and rate at which he has calculated the same and must afford an opportunity to the person concerned before sending recovery certificate to the Collector. This would serve the interest of revenue as well as the public at large saving them from avoidable unnecessary harassment and litigation and, simultaneously, save valuable time of revenue recovery machinery from being wasted for execution of a defective recovery certificate. Moreover, if the Taxation Officer issues such a notice to the person concerned, it is quite possible that he/she may show that he had already paid such amount or its part and there is some error in the records of the Taxation Officer, and, that he/she is not liable to pay any amount or is liable to pay lesser amount. In many cases the party concerned if not in a position to dispute the amount, may itself offer and come forward to pay the entire amount without being subjected to the risk of recovery proceedings, inasmuch as, in that case it would also attract the additional burden of recovery charges which would be recovered from him. We, however, clarify that it would not vitiate the recovery certificates already issued, inasmuch as, there parties can be given a post decisional hearing. The person concerned, if approaches with proper facts and material to show that the amount shown in recovery certificate is actually not recoverable or needs correction or modification, as the case may be, the authority concerned may take into consideration his grievance and pass appropriate
28. In view of above, we are disposing of this writ petition with the following directions:
1. The petitioner may submit a fresh representation before the Taxation Officer within fifteen days from today giving all particulars as he thinks fit to show as to why he is not liable to pay the amount for which the impugned recovery certificate has been issued and if such a representation is made, the Taxation Officer concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate order within six weeks thereafter. In case he finds that recovery certificate requires to be modified or withdrawn he shall inform the revenue recovering authorities accordingly. However, if he does not find any error in the recovery certificate, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. Recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall remain in abeyance for a period of two months whereafter the same shall follow the order passed by the Taxation Officer pursuant to this order.
2. Respondents No. 1 is hereby directed to issue a circular to all the Taxation Officers in the State of Uttar Pradesh requiring them not to issue any recovery certificate under Section 20 of 1997 Act, unless a show cause notice giving details of the amount sought to be recovered is issued to the person concerned and opportunity of making representation is afforded to such person. Such a circular shall be issued by respondent No. 1 within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to him.
3. In respect to recovery certificate already issued, the respondent No. I shall also inform all Taxation Officer that if any person makes a representation disputing the amount or liability with respect to said recovery, such representation shall be entertained and considered by the concerned Taxation Officer and shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
The Registrar General shall forthwith send a copy of this judgment to respondent No. 1 for compliance of the aforesaid directions.
There shall be no order as to costs.