Petitioner challenged service tax demand under Article 226 alleging double taxation. Court dismissed the writ petition as it was not pressed by the counsel.
None granted as the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI
And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 2869 of 1999
Between:
Sri Rama Picture Place, rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Pentakota Radha Krishna, 48-14-71, Nakkavanipalem Junction, Visakhapatnam
..... PETITIONER
AND
Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Customs House, Port area, Vishkapatnam.
.....RESPONDENT
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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the demand made by the respondent for collection and payment of services tax for the purpose of exhibition or display being done through advertising agencies, which were already registered under Section 69 of Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of service tax, and who have been collecting and paying services tax for the purpose of advertisement including preparation and exhibition, as illegal arbitrary, capricious, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and against the spirit of tax law as it amounts to double taxation and consequently to direct the respondent not to demand and collect the Service tax from
the petitioner for exhibition of advertisements received through advertising agencies referred to above.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI and Sri P. SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the sole Respondent: MR.ARAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG)
The Court, made the following:
Oral order: (Per: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing the writ petition. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as ‘not pressed’. No costs.
BILAL NAZAKI, J
S. ANANDA REDDY,J
Dt. 03-11-2004
Pvks/*
To
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Union of India, New Customs House, Port area, Vishkapatnam.
2.2CD copies
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Rama Picture Place
Union of India
Bilal Nazki
S. Ananda Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
