The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the Appellate Tribunal had already pronounced orders on 21-02-2005, rendering the remedy under Article 226 unnecessary. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, ordering no costs.
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)
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.H.S.ANSARI
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 12810 of 2004
Between:
M/s.Hyderabad Pollution Controls Ltd.,
Plot No.95G, IDA Jeedimetla,
Ranga Reddy District,
rep., by its Director, Mr.N.A.Nair.
..... PETITIONER
AND
Legal, Andhra Pradesh,
Office of Commissioner of Commercial taxes,
Opp:Gandhi Bhavan, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
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 writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or directions calling for the records of the 2nd respondent dt.30-06-2004 in CCT's Ref.No.L.III(3)/2326/03 and quash the same as arbitrary, contrary to law and against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the petitioner's case. Consequently, grant stay of collection of disputed taxes of Rs.1,13,557/- and Rs.7,13,793/- for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively both under Central Sales Tax pending disposal of the appeals before the Sales
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following :
ORDER:(Per TCSR,J)
It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that orders were pronounced by the Appellate Tribunal on 21-02-2005. In view of the same, the writ petition becomes infructuous, since the petitioner has to pursue the remedies available under law as against the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous, but under the circumstances no order as to costs.
M.H.S.ANSARI,J
T.CH.SURYA RAO,J
Date: 14-03-2005 Prv
To
Jeedimetla Circle, Hyderabad.
Commercial Taxes,
Legal, Andhra Pradesh,
Office of Commissioner of Commercial taxes,
Opp:Gandhi Bhavan, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT).
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is infructuous because orders of the Appellate Tribunal were already pronounced on 21-02-2005.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Hyderabad Pollution Controls Ltd.
1 Commercial Tax Officer, Jeedimetla Circle, Hyderabad.
2 Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Legal, Andhra Pradesh.
M.H.S.Ansari
T.Ch.Surya Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
