Disposed

M/s.N.Janardhan Rao, Works Contractor, Nandyal v. The Additional Commisisoner of Commercial Taxes (Legal)

Telangana HC14 Jul 2008WP/15052/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for stay on tax collection. The court directed the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery pending the appeal's finalisation but ordered the petitioner to deposit half the disputed tax within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to take coercive recovery steps pending appeal; ordered petitioner to deposit 50% of disputed tax within 8 weeks.

M/s.N.Janardhan Rao, Works Contractor, Nandyal Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 15052 of 2008

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s.N.Janardhan Rao, Works Contractor, Nandyal Rep.by Sri.N.Janardhan Rao,S/o.Narayana Rao, Kurnool District

.....

PETITIONER

AND

1 The Additional Commisisoner of Commercial Taxes (Legal)

¶13

Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

¶14

M.J.Road,Nampally,Hyderabad

¶15

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kurnool Divison, Kurnool

¶16

3 The Commercial Tax officer, No.II Cirlce Nandyal, Kurnool District

¶17

.....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 an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 8.2.2008 in CCTs.Ref.No.LIII(3)/767/2007 issued by the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Hyderabad rejecting the

¶18

application dated 25.10.2007 for stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.6,40,119/- for assessment year 200304 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad without considering the payment of Rs.2,97,149/- already made as illegal, improper unfair and arbitrary, and directing the Respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance of the disputed tax pending appeal and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the ends of justice

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶21

The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI)

¶22

Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 8.2.2008 issued by the first respondent refusing to stay collection of the disputed tax of Rs.6,40,119/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 pending disposal of appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶23

The petitioner executes work contracts with the State Government Department and is an assessee on the rolls of the third respondent. The petitioner was assessed to tax for the assessment year 2003-2004 by the third respondent on 4.3.2006, which was revised by the second respondent on 31.7.2007. Aggrieved by the said

¶24

revision, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and also filed an application seeking stay of the collection of the disputed tax before the first respondent, which was rejected by the first respondent refusing to stay collection of the disputed tax. Hence, this writ petition.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, the third respondent is contemplating to initiate coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes.

¶27

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to deposit half of the disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum.

¶28

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶29

____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan July 14, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}

M/s.N.Janardhan Rao, Works Contractor, Nandyal v. The Additional Commisisoner of Commercial Taxes (Legal)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.N.Janardhan Rao, Works Contractor, Nandyal v. The Additional Commisisoner of Commercial Taxes (Legal)

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

Rep. Secretary-Sri G.Tirumala Rao. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Sri Durga Cotton Traders, 25-2-22, G.T.Road, Guntur, Vs Assistant Commissioner (C.T.) (Vmu-Ii)

S. Rajendhar Reddy, Vs The Secretary

Azam Jahi Mills.a.U.N.T.Corp.Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner of LABOUR.AND2 Other

The Secretary to Govt., Vs a.Chandresekhar Reddy

Secretary , Education Dept, Vs K.Varaha Narasimhulu