Nekkanti Rama Rao, W.G.District. Vs the Dy.C.T.O., Eluru Division & Another

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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Form-IV Demand prior to attachment notice issued t.17-5-06 under Section 25 of Revenue Recovery Act 1864 signed by the first respondent on 17-5-2006 received by the petitioner on 255-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of APGST Act as well as section 17-C of the APGST Act as well as the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.21526/96 and batch and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶18

2

¶19

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.11582 of 2006

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 14402 OF 2006

¶21

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 to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 17-5-2006 issued by the first respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.M V J K KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.DANTU SRINIVAS( SPL SC FOR CT)

¶26

2.SPL GP FOR TAXES

¶27

3

¶28

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.11582 of 2006

¶29

The Court made the following Order:

¶30

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶31

The petitioner had signed as a surety for the 2^nd respondent, at the time, when the 2^nd respondent was registering itself, under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The said surety was executed, in the year, 1997.

¶32

Subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated, under the Revenue Recovery Act against the 2^nd respondent as well as the petitioner herein, for amounts, which had been fallen due, for the assessment years, 1999-2000 onwards.

¶33

The petitioner being aggrieved by the notice of attachment, dated 17.05.2006, in this regard, has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition, contending that, he would not be liable for any of the dues of the 2^nd respondent.

¶34

Dr. M. V. K. Moorthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of New Kamal Bar and Cafe Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.¹ , contends that, the liability of a surety, in view of Section 12(7), Rule 28(8) and Clause 19, in form D, restricts the liability of a surety to a period of one year from the date of registration. As such, no claim can be

¶35

1 (2006) 42 APSTJ 77

¶36

4

¶37

RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.11582 of 2006

¶38

made against the petitioner for dues, which arose in the year, 1999-2000 onwards.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid judgment of the erstwhile High Court, it must be held that, the petitioner is not liable for the dues of the 2^nd respondent arising from the year 1999-2000 onwards.

¶40

Consequently, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notice, dated 17.05.2006 and all other proceedings under the said notice. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

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

¶42

________________________

¶43

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶44

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

¶45

Date: 09.03.2026 KPV

¶46

5