Disposed

M/s.Ram Das ANDCompany,No.8,Krishnanagar colony v. The Commercial TAx officer,Marredpally Circle

Telangana HC15 Jul 2008WP/15115/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court granted a stay on the respondent's demand for the balance of disputed tax pending the disposal of an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, conditioning it on the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed amount within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Stay of recovery of balance disputed tax subject to deposit of 50% within 6 weeks.

M/s.Ram Das ANDCompany,No.8,Krishnanagar colony Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO : 15115 of 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s.Ram Das &Company,No.8,Krishnanagar colony Picket, Secunderabad, rep.by its Managing partner Manmohan Verma

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Commercial Tax Officer, Marredpally Circle, Hyderabad

¶10

.....RESPONDENT

¶11

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 appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus and declare the action of the respondent in seeking to recover the balance of the disputed amount of Rs.1,04,000/- from the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and issue any other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon`ble court may be pleased to deem fit and proper.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.DANTU.SRINIVAS

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI A.V. KRISHNA KAUNDINYA (SPL.SC FOR CT)

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO : 15115 of 2008

¶17

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)

¶18

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondent in seeking to recover the balance of the disputed amount of Rs.1,04,000/- pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶19

The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad But the said appeal was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner filed further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending. The petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax. While so, after dismissal of the appeal by the first Appellate authority, the respondent is demanding for payment of the balance disputed tax. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against order of the first appellate authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax as on today and at this juncture, the insistence for payment of the balance disputed tax is illegal and arbitrary.

¶22

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to imposition of certain conditions.

¶23

Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax, till disposal of the appeal pending before the Tribunal subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount, if any already paid, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum.

¶24

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari

¶26

___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 15^th July, 2008 Nn.

¶27

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶28

WRIT PETITION No:15115 OF 2008

¶29

(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)

¶30

15/07/2008

M/s.Ram Das ANDCompany,No.8,Krishnanagar colony v. The Commercial TAx officer,Marredpally Circle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Ram Das ANDCompany,No.8,Krishnanagar colony v. The Commercial TAx officer,Marredpally Circle

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

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

K.S.R.T.C.Bangalore Central Division, rep.by Divisional Vs Licensing Officer, and R.T.O., Chittoor

M/s. Andhra Fules Private Limited, 6-3-1110, 11 and 12, Vs The Commiercial Tax Officer

M/s. Dlf Laing O Rourke (India) Ltd., Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (Ct)