Disposed

M/s Priyadarshini Cement Limited, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC8 Nov 2004WP/3186/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition against tax recovery proceedings, directing parties to pursue the pending Tribunal appeal rather than quashing the order, given that one-third of the disputed tax had already been deposited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pursue pending Tribunal appeal; the operative order dated 03-03-2004 remains as subject to this outcome. No costs.

M/s Priyadarshini Cement Limited, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI

¶6

And

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO : 3186 of 2004

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s Priyadarshini Cement Limited, 34, Green Towers, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 073, rep.by its Advisor (Corporate Affairs), Mr.G.Ramachandran.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad, Nalgonda District.

¶14

2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad.

¶15

3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶16

4 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(LTU), Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction quashing the order of the 3rd Respondent in CCT Ref.No.LIII(3)/1698/2003 dated 9-12-2003 as arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and consequently restrain the 4th Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of disputed tax of Rs.40,34,939/- pending disposal of T.A.No.445 of 2002 by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SPECIAL GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

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

¶23

This Court passed an order on 03-03-2004 directing that, pending further orders, the petitioner shall deposit 1/3^rd of the disputed tax. It is submitted that this amount has already been deposited and the appeal is pending before the Tribunal. In view of this position, we do not think that it will serve any purpose to keep this writ petition pending. Since the appeal is pending before the appellate authority and 1/3^rd of the disputed tax has been deposited, it will be appropriate to direct the parties to pursue the appeal itself.

¶24

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The order dated 03-03-2004 of this court shall remain operative till the appeal is disposed of and shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal by the Tribunal. The appeal may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

¶25

BILAL NAZKI, J

¶26

S. ANANDA REDDY, J

Dt. 08-11-2004

Pvks/*

1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad, Nalgonda District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad.

¶31

3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶32

4 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(LTU), Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda.

¶33

5.2CCs to the Special Government Pleader for Taxes, A.P. High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

¶34

6.2CD copies

¶35

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSR}

M/s Priyadarshini Cement Limited, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Priyadarshini Cement Limited, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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.

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Vs Superintendent of Central Excise

M/s Sripasa Engineering Company, a regd.partnership Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Commercial