Allowed¶35

P.Ravi Kumar, Chittoor District v. Govt.of Ap by C.T.Dept., Chittoor District & 2 Others

APGST Act – Section 12(7) r/w Rule 28(8) APGST Rules – liability of surety

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jan 2026WP/28131/2007

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 28131 of 2007; APGST Act Section 12(7); APGST Rules Rule 28(8); surety liability limited to first year arrears after dealer registration; recovery of dealer's tax arrears from surety; Tirupati, Chittoor District, Commercial Tax; writ of mandamus under Article 226; judgment dated 19.01.2026; R. Raghunandan Rao, J and T.C.D. Sekhar, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A3/1542/2001 dated 29.08.2007 and 24.10.2007 set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶35

P.Ravi Kumar, Chittoor District Vs Govt.of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3529]

¶2

APHC010442622007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 28131/2007

¶10

Between:

¶11

P.RAVI KUMAR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, S/O OF LATE P.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, BUSINESS R/O DOOR NO.13-6-600/44/E2, PEDDAKAPU LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

GOVT OF AP BY C T DEPT CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2 OTHERS, DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERII, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TIRUPATI-I CIRCLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶16

SIDHARDA MARKETING DOOR NO 169 TK STREET, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.SAI KUMAR, S/O M.RAMALINGESWARA RAO.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.A3/1542/2001 dated 29-08-2007 and 24-10-2007 as illegal, arbitrary

¶19

¶20

and one without jurisdiction and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 36766 OF 2007

¶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 to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents issued in Rc.No.A3/1542/2001 dated 29-08-2007 and 24-102007 pending disposal of the WP and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.O MANOHER REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶27

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

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

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

¶31

The 3^rd respondent had registered itself under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short “the APGST Act ”). The petitioner, in compliance with Section 12(7) of the APGST Act read with Rule 28(8) of the APGST Rules had furnished a security to the respondents 1 and 2 on 15.09.1993 on an estimated turnover of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, notices were issued by the 1^st respondent stating that the 3^rd respondent had fallen arrears for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2002-2003 and that the petitioner would have to make payment of the arrears which were not paid by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notice, dated 28.09.2007 and the subsequent proceedings, dated 24.10.2007 which was the final notice issued to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,73,595/-, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.

¶32

A Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by judgment, dated 27.01.2006 in W.P.No.21526 of 1996 and batch, had held that the sureties furnished under Section 12(7) r/w Rule 28(8) would be a surety only for the arrears arising out of the first year after the dealer has been registered. The Division Bench, in coming to this conclusion, had followed the

¶33

¶34

earlier judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.17017 of 2002.

¶35

In the circumstances and following the aforesaid judgments, the present Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.A3/1542/2001, dated 29.08.2007 and 24.10.2007. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

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

¶37

________________________

¶38

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶39

________________

¶40

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 19.01.2026 KA

¶41

¶42