Disposed

S. Punit Singh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/9912/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging an illegal tax demand notice on the ground of infraction. The respondents stated the vehicle was transferred to a third party, rendering the petition infructuous. The Court directed waiver of the amount as disputable but left the merits open for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Conditional waiver of the demanded tax and penalty amount; liberty to show cause if facts are incorrect.

S. Punit Singh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010156672012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-16 [3584] AT AMARAVATI

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO: 9912 of 2012

S. Punit Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶11

DATE : 11^th September, 2026

¶12

Present :

¶13

Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr Maruthi Raja Evani (through VC) for Mr B Sivaramakrishnaiah Advocate for Respondent(s) : GP for Transport (AP)

¶14

LISA GILL, CJ:

¶15

Prayer in this writ petition reads as under:

¶16

“..to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Demand Notice in Rc.No.5838/C2/2011, Dt.27.2.2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent asking to pay the 1/3^rd quarterly tax & an equal amount of penalty totaling Rs.93,100/- for the vehicle bearing No.KA/01AD-1500, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents and their subordinates not to interfere with the operations of the petitioner..”

¶17

¶18

HCJ & CGR, J WP_9912_2012

¶19

Learned counsel for respondents, on written instructions dated 10.09.2026 from Deputy Transport Commissioner, Ananthapuramu, submits that this writ petition is rendered infructuous as vehicle in question was transferred by writ petitioner on 17.05.2012 to Firoze Khan .

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he does not have any

¶21

specific instructions in this regard.

¶22

Perusal of file reveals that interim suspension of operation of impugned demand notice had been afforded to petitioner, on 10.04.2012, on payment of half of demanded amount within a period of one week. It is informed by learned counsel for respondents that said amount has been deposited on 20.04.2012.

¶23

Keeping in view the specific statement made by learned counsel for respondents, we find no justification in continuation of present proceedings. At the same time, keeping in view the petty amount now involved after deposit of half the demanded amount in April, 2012, it is directed that said amount shall stand waived. It is clarified that this dispensation is not an expression of opinion on merits of the matter. The question as raised in the writ petition is kept open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.

¶24

¶25

HCJ & CGR, J WP_9912_2012

¶26

Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of as infructuous with

¶27

liberty to petitioner to file appropriate application within two weeks in case any incorrect fact has been placed before us. No costs.

¶28

Pending application(s) if any stand(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶29

LISA GILL, CJ

¶30

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

¶31

Vjl Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No

S. Punit Singh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Punit Singh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases