Disposed

Ahmed Khan v. The Joint Transport Commissioner and

Telangana HC1 Apr 2005WP/6295/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the issuance of a showcause notice for tax payment, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the respondent authorities to issue a tax token for the petitioner's vehicle after collecting the necessary tax. The court held that this order does not prejudice the pending adjudication of the showcause notice. The petition was disposed of by directing the release of the t

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to release a tax token for the vehicle bearing No. APQ 4287 after collecting the necessary tax from the petitioner.

Ahmed Khan Vs The Joint Transport Commissioner and — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

¶6

and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶7

WRIT PETITION No: 6295 of 2005

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ahmed Khan S/o. Mahaboob Khan, R/o. 6-3-1242/126/2, Muqtha, Muqtha, Opp: Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad.

¶13

.....RESPONDENT

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the Notice dt. 4-112004 through his proceedings No. 18683/B3/HC/2003, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent herein to receive the quarterly tax regularly by issuing the tax token in respect of the vehicle bearing No. APQ 4287 and pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ARIFULLA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.6295 of 2005

¶21

ORAL ORDER:- (PER GB,J.)

¶22

The Writ Petition is filed against the action of the respondent in issuing the showcause notice, dated 04.11.2004, and to direct the respondent to receive the quarterly tax regularly by issuing the tax token in respect of the vehicle bearing No. AP Q 4287.

¶23

2. On the earlier occasion the learned Government was asked to obtain instructions. On instructions now he submits that the petitioner was already issued with the showcause notice, dated 04.11.2004, and the matter is pending adjudication, and under those circumstances, he submits that a direction may be issued to the authorities to issue the tax token for collection of appropriate tax as per Rules.

¶24

3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the authorities to release the tax token after collecting necessary tax from the petitioner. However, this order does not preclude the authorities for passing final orders in pursuance of the show-

¶25

cause notice, dated 04.11.2004.

¶26

G. BIKSHAPATHY, J

Date: 01.04.2005

P.S. NARAYANA, J

Note:- Issue copy by 04.04.2005 B/o. ES To

¶31

1. The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad.

¶32

2. 2 CCs to the GP for Transport, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

¶33

3. 2 CD copies

¶34

4. 1 CC to MR.ARIFULLA

Ahmed Khan v. The Joint Transport Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Khan v. The Joint Transport Commissioner and

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

Ponnada Satyanarayana Rao and 3 Ors. Vs Commissioner of C.T. Hyd and 2 Ors.

M/s. Krishna Sagar Agro Industries, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer-Iii

G. Rameshwar Rao, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board

M/S. Mahalakshmi Enterprises, Vs The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal)

G, Manaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G.V. Rami Reddy Vs the Commissioner and Director of