Disposed

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

Telangana HC15 Jul 2008WP/15126/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court granted a stay on the recovery of disputed tax pending the disposal of an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The stay was conditioned upon the depositing of 50% of the disputed tax within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Stay of recovery of balance disputed tax till disposal of appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of disputed tax within six weeks.

M/s. Andhra Fules Private Limited, 6-3-1110, 11 and… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO : 15126 of 2008

¶3

Between:

¶4

M/s. Andhra Fules Private Limited, 6-3-1110, 11 & 12, Amrutha Mall, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 016,

¶5

rep. by its General Manager-Finance, Mr. S.Ravi Prasad.

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The Commiercial Tax Officer, Srinagar Colony Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad.

¶9

3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS

¶10

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's Ref.No.LIII(2)/414/2008, dated 23.5.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of balance disputed tax of Rs.27,87,636/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.57,75,533/pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate of Tribunal in T.A.No.475 of 2008 for the assessment year 2003-04 under the APGST Act.

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH

¶12

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KAUNDINYA, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶13

The Court made the following :

¶14

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

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO : 15126 of 2008

¶16

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

¶17

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order of the 3^rd respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/414/2008, dated 23.5.2008 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to restrain the 1^st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of balance disputed tax of Rs.27,87,636/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs.57,75,533/- for the assessment year 2003-04, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate of Tribunal.

¶18

The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. But the 2^nd respondent dismissed the appeal. Hence, an appeal has been preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax was filed before the 3^rd respondent. But the 3^rd respondent refused to grant stay. Taking advantage of the refusal of stay, the 1^st respondent issued a notice demanding the balance disputed tax. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶19

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

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid more than 50% of the disputed tax and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the collection of the disputed tax is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax in question is effected

¶21

during the pendency of the appeal, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated.

¶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:15126 OF 2008

¶29

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

¶30

15/07/2008

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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.Ram Das ANDCompany,No.8,Krishnanagar colony Vs The Commercial TAx officer,Marredpally Circle

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