Allowed

R Jagadeesan v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Mar 2023WP/34931/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was allowed regarding a demand notice issued for tax penalties. The court held that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's representation before issuing the notice and directed a fresh show-cause notice to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notice dated 01.10.2022 set aside; respondent to issue fresh show-cause notice and decide pending representation in accordance with law.

R Jagadeesan Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.34931 of 2022

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶4

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned demand notice in R.No.9434/B4/2022 dated 01.10.2022 demanding the Petitioner to pay the penalty of Rs.72,500/- on the ground that by the time of issuing vehicle check report the special permit expired just before 2 hours as arbitrary, illegal and consequently set aside the impugned demand notice in R.No.9434/B4/2022 dated 01.10.2022 issued by the 2^nd Respondent….”

¶6

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as under:

¶7

The petitioner is the owner of Stage Carriage Bus bearing registration No.TN549434 covered by stage carriage permit valid up to 30.09.2024. He obtained special permit No.TN 2022 SPL 4223G from the Secretary, RTA Salem, Tamil Nadu State, which is valid till 16.08.2022. While so, on 16.08.2022, at about 11:00 P.M., while the vehicle was crossing the check post at KolaPunganur road limits, the 3^rd respondent stopped the vehicle for about three hours and thereafter, issued vehicle check report No.AP113/AUG2022/023268 alleging irregularities of (i) plying

¶8

¶9

without A.P. permit and (ii) plying without A.P. Tax. Thereafter, the second respondent demanded an amount of Rs.1,45,000/along with CF Rs.12,500/-, totaling Rs.1,57,500/- towards tax due payable by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28020 of 2022 and the same was disposed of on 02.09.2022. The operative port of the said order reads as under:

¶10

“the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 and place all the necessary documents before respondent No.2 by way of representation within a period of three (3) weeks from today. On such representation along with necessary documents, respondent No.2 shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, as early as possible within a period of four weeks thereafter, by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. If the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents as indicated in Vehicle Check Report, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate orders and collect the amount as indicated in Vehicle Check Report. Further, the petitioner is directed to deposit tax amount of Rs.72,500/with the concerned authority. As and when the tax amount is paid, vehicle of the petitioner bearing No.TN 54 9434 be released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall also given an undertaking that he will not create any third party interest in respect of subject vehicle and he will produce the vehicle whenever required”.

¶11

Hence, the writ petition is filed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in

¶13

pursuance of the order dated 02.09.2022, the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent on 15.09.2022 and filed a representation. In turn, the 2^nd respondent instead of considering the petitioner’s representation, straightaway issued a Show

¶14

¶15

Cause Notice dated 15.09.2022 directing the petitioner to show cause his explanation as to why the balance tax amount of Rs.72,500/- should not be collected by the 2^nd respondent for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 22.09.2022 enclosing all the requisite documents.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is that even without conducting any enquiry, without giving opportunity and without calling for an explanation, a show-cause notice dated 01.10.2022 was issued directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.72,500/-.

¶17

The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter admitting the fact that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has approached the 2^nd respondent on 15.09.2022 producing valid records along with an undertaking that he will not create any third party interest in respect of subject vehicle and he will produce the vehicle as and when required. After the amounts were deposited, the vehicle was released to the petitioner on the same day i.e. on 15.09.2022. Thereafter, a show-cause Notice was issued on 15.09.2022 for which, an explanation was submitted by the petitioner and having not been satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a final demand notice was issued.

¶18

¶19

As per the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has approached the respondents by way of representation enclosing all the requisite documents. But instead of passing any order on the representation made by the petitioner, on the same day, the 2^nd respondent has issued the show-cause Notice, which is nothing but a final demand order.

¶20

In view of the same, the impugned demand notice dated 01.10.2022 is set aside and the 2^nd respondent is directed to issue fresh show-cause Notice, as the orders on representation made by the petitioner on 15.09.2022 are still pending before the 2^nd respondent and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law.

¶21

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶23

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶24

Date : 21.03.2023 KGR/KBS

¶25

¶26

¶27

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.34931 of 2023

¶29

Date : 21.03.2023

¶30

KGR/KBS

R Jagadeesan v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Jagadeesan v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tadepalli Tataji Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohamed Abdul Malik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Steel Exchange India Limited, Vs The Special Chief Secretary

Smt. R. Bhadramma, VISAKHAPATNAM-1. Vs the A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District Vs Md, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Vizag Steel Plant) and 3 Other

S. v. B. Anand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh