Yakkala Subba Rao, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring that. A. the Demand Notice dated 14-03-2025 (Ex. P-1) issued by the 2nd Respondent, demanding alleged tax due of Rs. 22,47,510/-, and Rs. 3,85,964/- for the Assessment Years 2008-2009. and 2010-2011. respectively, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the

¶19

2

¶20

principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, B. the inaction of the Respondents in not revoking the attachment of the immovable property of the daughters of the petitioner, by the TRO-2, Vijayawada, vide attachment order dated 07-06-2011 (Ext. P-2) as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14,19(l)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and C. the petitioner is entitled to the refund of Rs. 15,52,197/-, subject to adjustment of Rs.9,550/- towards the tax due for the A.Y. 2018-19, consequently, D. to set aside the attachment order dated 07-06-2011 (Ex.P-2) issued by the TRO-2, Vijayawada, E. to direct the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 15,42,647/- with consequential relief to the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner will be put to further irreparable loss and hardship, and/or F. to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the Demand Notice dated 14-03-2025 (Ex.P-1), pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.A SARVESWAR RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.Y N VIVEKANANDA

¶27

3

¶28

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

¶29

The petitioner had received demand notice dated 14.03.2025, calling upon the petitioner to pay tax dues of Rs.3,85,964/- and Rs.22,47,510/- for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, respectively. Apart from this, another sum of Rs.9,550/- for the assessment year 2018-19 was also demanded. The petitioner being aggrieved by this demand, has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that, the demand of Rs.22,47,510/for the assessment year 2008-09 does not exist, as no assessment order, raising such a demand, had been passed against the petitioner, nor has the petitioner received any such order.

¶31

The petitioner would also submit that the respondents, under the guise of recovery of the aforesaid amounts, adjusted a sum of Rs.12,98,737/-, which had arisen as a refund to the petitioner, and a further sum of Rs.2,53,460/-, which had also arisen as a refund for the assessment year 2024-25. Apart from this, the respondents had also attached the immovable property, belonging to the daughters of the petitioner, by way of an order of attachment, dated 07.06.2011, which was illegal, as no dues were payable by the petitioner.

¶32

The 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the 1^st respondent has specifically admitted that there were no

¶33

4

¶34

orders, for the assessment year 2008-09 raising a demand of Rs.22,47,510/-. In view of the specific admission by the 1^st respondent that no demand has been raised against the petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09, the said amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner.

¶35

The petitioner has also filed an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 10.05.2011, for the assessment year 2010-11. The said order of intimation states that the net tax payable by the petitioner is Rs.1,933/-. This intimation is not disputed, and in fact, the 1^st respondent, at paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit, admits that the demand for the said assessment year is only Rs.1,933/-.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner was not liable to pay any of the amounts raised in the impugned demand notice dated 14.03.2025. Consequently, no property of the petitioner, much less that of the daughters of the petitioner, could have been attached for recovery of the said amounts.

¶37

At this stage, Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned counsel, would submit that, there is no dispute that a sum of Rs.9,500/- was due. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the said amount has to be paid.

¶38

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶39

5

¶40

The order of attachment dated 07.06.2011, attaching the immovable property of the daughters of the petitioner is set aside.

¶41

The petitioner is entitled for recovery of Rs.15,52,197/-, subject to adjustment of Rs.9,550/-, payable under the demand notice dated 14.03.2025.

¶42

The 1^st respondent shall ensure refund of the aforesaid amounts to the petitioner along with consequent interest, as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, read with relevant rules, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of this order.

¶43

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶46

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

¶47

Dt.17.02.2026 DSB

¶48

6