Disposed

M/s. Sarvaraya Textile Limited, v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Telangana HC4 Nov 2004WP/20297/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This historic judgment details the admission of a writ petition challenging a distraint order. It involves a taxpayer admitted liable for tax arrears seeking further time to pay. The court granted two months to discharge the liability upon filing an undertaking. This judgment itself was disposed at the admission stage; the fate of the petitioner's substantive writ challenge is unknown from these r

What did the court decide?

Granted two months time to discharge the whole liability upon filing an undertaking before the respondents.

M/s. Sarvaraya Textile Limited, Vs Deputy Commercial… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI

¶6

And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO : 20297 of 2004

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Sarvaraya Textile Limited, Kakinada, Represented by its Managing Director Sri S.B.P.S. Krishna Mohan .

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) Gold Market, Kakainada.

¶13

2 Commercial Tax Officer, Jagannaickpur Circle, Kakinada.

¶14

3 Deputy Commissioenr of Commercial Tax Department, Kakinada Circle, Kakinada.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing Form-I Distraint order dated 26th October, 2004 for the assessment Year 2001-2002 CST as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAISWAL

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶18

The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following:

¶19

Oral order: (Per: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki)

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The liability is not disputed. It is submitted by the petitioner that it agreed to discharge the liability by making payments by instalments every month. Admittedly, petitioner has failed to make payments through some of the instalments and now, according to it, there is a balance due of Rs. 3,00,000-00 (Rupees three lakhs only). The petitioner wants further time to make this payment, as the respondents have already issued a notice in Form No.I—Distraint order dated 26-10-2004.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we feel that it will be appropriate, in the interest of justice, if some more time is granted to the petitioner and accordingly we grant two months time from today to discharge the whole liability and for this purpose, the petitioner shall give an undertaking before the respondents within one week.

¶22

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶23

BILAL NAZAKI, J

¶24

S. ANANDA REDDY, J

¶25

Dt. 04-11-2004

¶26

Pvks/*

¶27

Nb: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs.

¶28

B/o pvks.

¶29

¶30

1 Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) Gold Market, Kakainada.

¶31

2 Commercial Tax Officer, Jagannaickpur Circle, Kakinada. 3 Deputy Commissioenr of Commercial Tax Department, Kakinada Circle, Kakinada.

¶32

4. 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, A.P. High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶33

5. 2CD copies

¶34

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}

M/s. Sarvaraya Textile Limited, v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sarvaraya Textile Limited, v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rama Picture Place, Vs Union of India, New Customs House, Port area

Angel Hostel Nuzvid Vs Commr of Muncipality Nuzvid and 2 Ors.

M/s. Lakshmi Srinivasa Traders, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s.Jubilee Hills International Center, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s Pioma Industries, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Techno Auto Builders, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada, Vs Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-Ii, Vijayawada.