S.S. Diesel Systems Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner and Another

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent not to enforce the demand in the notice at Annexure-D. Eventhough the notice is addressed to M/s. TAPPS Granites Private Limited, the same had been served on the Petitioner because the address of both the firms are one and the same. Petitioner is not a defaulter under Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It may be that the Director of the Petitioner is one of the Director in M/s. TAPPS Granites and both the firms are located in the same premises bearing No. 143/2. But that will not make the Petitioner-firm to face the demand notice in question.

It is for the Respondents to recover the amounts due from M/s. TAPPS Granites, who is the actual defaulter as per the impugned notice. The demand in question cannot be enforced against the Petitioner. The action of Respondents in issuing the notice in question is bad in law.

Writ Petition is allowed directing the Respondents to enforce the impugned demand notice against the firm to which it is addressed and not against the Petitioner.