The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed in 2006 challenging the levy of commercial tax on goods in transit, evidently lapsing for want of prosecution after a long delay, without granting relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 21311 OF 2006
Between:
^ ^ ^ Bye-pass Road, Melvisharam - 632 509 Special Power of Attorny Holder, Konakondia VenkataRamalayam,NagaPiduguralla,Samba SivaGunturRao, S/o.District.China Narayana, aged 56 yrsy b,u.iNo.D No o/or,3/87 ivearNear
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
■ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that section 47 of APVAT Act 2005 as unconstitutional violating article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, ultravires Entry54 in the state list of the Vllth Schedule to the Constitution read with article 286 vi-s-vis section 5 of APVAT Act, 2005 and consequently to hold that the action of he respondent in collecting the tax and penalty from the petitioner in respect of effected from Kanpur covered by invoice No.97 dated 1- 10-05 while the goods were in transit enroute to Tamilnadu and passing through Andhra Pradesh, for non issue of transit pass as illegal, arbitrary unjust improper without authority of law and jurisdiction much less contrary to section 5 of the APVAT Act and section 45(7)(a) of the VAT Act as also Article 286 of the Constitution of India and accordingly direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.21,720/- collected towards tax and also Rs.21,720/- collected towards penalty vide receipt No.0497912 dated. 10-10-05.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 27028 OF 2006)
t Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the final hearing of the writ petition upon service of the notices to the respondents as according to the petitioner the levy and collection of tax and penalty on goods not sold in the state of Andhra Pradesh is illegal and without authority of law and grant.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. M V J K KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
»
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.213n nf .Onnfi
ORDER:-
No representation for the petitioner. The matter is listed in the weekly list. 2. The matter pertains to the year 2006. 3. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed for “want of prosecution”.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall also stand closed.
/
SD/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT^EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI M V J K KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] ^ COMMERCIAL TAX, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 3. Two CCs to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies Madhu MBT
HIGH COURT
DATED: 05/01/2024
ORDER
WP.No.21311 of 2006
DISMISSING THE WP FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed for challenging tax levy is disposed of due to lack of active prosecution.
Samba Siva Guntur Rao
The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer No. II Circle
Principal Secretary, Revenue
Ravi Nath Tilhari
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
