Allowed

M/s.The Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax officer

Telangana HC16 Nov 2004WP/20756/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a stay application. The Court set aside the authority's order and directed the petitioner to deposit half the disputed tax within eight weeks to secure an unconditional stay pending appeal. Failure to deposit would lift the stay, allowing coercive collection steps. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order dismissing stay; directed deposit of half disputed tax liability within eight weeks to secure unconditional stay until appeal disposal.

M/s.The Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd., Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH 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 : 20756 of 2004

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s.The Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd., Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500044, rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.V.V.Ramakrishnan.

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Commercial Tax officer, M.J.Market Circle, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 3rd Respondent in CCT's Ref:LIII(1)/2011/04 dated 2-11-2004 as unreasonable, unjustified, arbitrary and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for collection of the disputed tax of Rs.43,12,899/- for the assessment year 2002-03 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd

¶16

Respondent.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER: (Per: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki)

¶21

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage.

¶22

The controversy is that pending appeal, application for stay was dismissed by the competent authority. We have gone through the record and heard learned Counsel for the parties. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal, subject to deposit of half of the liability. Therefore, we set aside the order of the authority and direct that half of the disputed tax liability shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. Any amount already paid shall be deducted from the amount to be deposited. For eight weeks, there shall be an unconditional stay and the stay shall continue till disposal of the appeal, provided the amount is deposited within eight weeks. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal.

¶23

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶24

BILAL NAZKI, J

¶25

S. ANANDA REDDY, J

¶26

Dt. 16-11-2004

¶27

Pvks/*

¶28

Nb: Furnish operative portion by wire at party’s cost.

¶29

B/o pvks/*

¶30

¶31

1.The Commercial Tax officer, M.J.Market Circle, Hyderabad. 2.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3.The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶32

4.2CCs to the Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, A.P. High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

¶33

5.2CD copies

¶34

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA}

M/s.The Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.The Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax officer

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

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M/s. Nagarjuna Coated Tubes

M/s Vijaya Lakshmi Agencies Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

K. Madhava Rao Vs The Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry

M/s. K.R. Mohan Reddy Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta

The Municipal Council, Bhainsa, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Aravind Agencies, Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Lega)(Fac)