Allowed

Gullapudi Someswara Rao, v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024WP/7126/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, allowed a writ petition seeking to quash demand notices and attachment proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act against a petitioner who was a surety for tax dues of his son. The court held that such notices for specific years were impermissible and arose out of earlier litigation where the liability was partially admitted only for limited periods.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice dated 25-01-2006, attachment notice dated 16-02-2006, and proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act are quashed and set aside.

Gullapudi Someswara Rao, Vs Commissioner of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERi/ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR 'i

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7126 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gullapudi Someswara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy, Aged about 49 Years, R/o.Tadepalligudem, W.G.District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. District Commercial Tax Officer, West Godavari,^Eluru.

¶12

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer I, Tadepalligudem,^{W.G.District.}

¶13

Gullapudi Nageswara Rao, S/o.Someswara Rao, Business, R/o.Subbaraopet, Tadepalligudem, W.G.District.

¶14

(Dismissed for default as against R.4 as per Court^Order dt.22/06/2011)

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the Demand Notice issued by the 3 rd respondent dt:25-1-2006 and the consequential notice^{ofattachmentdt:16-} 2-2006 seeking the recover the arrears of tax alleged^{tobeduefromthe4*^} respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable etc., and grant such other just and consequential relief (s) reliefs.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP. NO: 9169 OF 20Q6|

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner or his property for recovery of the alleged arrears of tax alleged to be due from the 4"^ respondent pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and grant such other relief or reliefs.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. V. L. N. SARMA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 3: SPL GP FOR TAXES

¶21

¶22

SRI DANTU SRINIVAS (SPL SC FOR CT)

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

APHC010198462006

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH SEE AT AMARAVATI 0^ (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

[3488]

¶28

WEDNESDAY. THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 7126/2006

¶32

Between:

¶33

Gullapudi Someswara Rao, ...PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.VVL N SARMA

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

DANTU SRINIVAS( SPL SC FOR CT)

¶40

2.SPL GP FOR TAXES

¶41

The Court made the following Order: (perHon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶42

The petitioner, had stood surety for due payment of taxes by the 4 th respondent under the Andhra Pradesh General

¶43

Sales Tax Act, 1957 (herein referred to as ‘the A.P.G.S.T. Act’). It may also be recorded that the 4*^ respondent is the son of the petitioner.

¶44

The 4‘^ respondent commenced business in the year, 1998ⁱⁿ relation to ^ kirana items etc. As the 4'^ respondent had not paid the taxes for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.

¶45

The petitioner had received a notice, dated 17.07.2002, calling upon the petitioner to pay the taxes of the 4*^ respondent failing which, provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act would apply.

¶46

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.17017 of 2002, contending that the dues of the 4**^ respondent cannot be recovered from him and that the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be applied for recovery of such dues. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by a judgment, dated 12.04.2005, had partly-allowed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner, while cannot absolve himself from the liability of payment of taxes of the 4‘^ respondent, the petitioner would be liable for the taxes of the 4‘^ respondent only for the 1"' year after the registration of the 4'^ respondent under the A.P.G.S.T. Act.

¶47

Subsequently, another notice in Form-IV, under Section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued on 25.01.2006 against the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.19,69,487/-, being the tax and penalty payable for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.

¶48

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said attachment^orderand the consequential notice of attachment, dated 16.02.2006,^{hasapproached} this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶49

The facts recorded by the Hon’ble Division Bench in^{theearlierroundof} litigation would show that the Hon’ble Division Bench^{hadalreadyheldthat} any notice directing the petitioner to pay taxes or^{penaltiesfortheyears1999-} 2000 and 2000-2001 is impermissible in law.

¶50

In such circumstances, the impugned demand notice and proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act are not maintainable and^theyare quashed and set aside.

¶51

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall^{benoorderasto} costs.

¶52

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if^any shall stand closed. XI Cri That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon’ble Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur, The Chief Justice on this Wednesday, The Eighteenth day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty^Four.

¶53

Sd/- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIof^fepFICER

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt of A.P., Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶58

The District Commercial Tax Officer, West Godavari,^Eluru. 3. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer I, Tadepalligudem,^{W.G.District.} 4. One CC to Sri V. V. L. N. Sarma, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Dantu Srinivas,( SPL SC FOR CT) Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to SPL GP for Taxes, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT]

¶59