Disposed

M/s.K.Linga Reddy v. The Joint Commissioner (Ct) (Legal) (Fac)

Telangana HC18 Jul 2008WP/15432/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a stay on tax recovery. Directing the petitioner to deposit half of the disputed tax within six weeks, the court prohibits coercive recovery actions until the appeal is finalized, with credited payments for any deposits made.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of tax pending appeal; directing petitioner to deposit half of demanded tax within six weeks.

M/s.K.Linga Reddy Vs The Joint Commissioner (Ct)… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH 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 : 15432 of 2008

¶7

Between: M/s.K.Linga Reddy No.2-2-1105/13, Tilaknagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad - 500 036 Represented by its Proprietor: K. Linga Reddy S/o.Sri.K.Raja Reddy.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) (FAC), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally St. Road, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad : Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally St. Road, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad : Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Vidyanagar Circle, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India

¶12

praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to o issue an appropriate Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated: 24-06-2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No. L-V(1)/390/2008 for assessment year 2003-2004 (APGST) as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and pass such other order or orders.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SRINIVAS

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.:

¶15

MR.K.RAJI REDDY(SPL.SC FOR CT)

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI)

¶18

Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay collection of the disputed tax of Rs.11,91,631/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the respondent not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2003-04, pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶19

The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of execution of works contract and is an assessee on the rolls of the third respondent. The third respondent, has completed the assessment for the year 2003-2004 on 26.11.2007 and without considering the nature of works contract executed by the petitioner viz.,

¶20

conversion of track from MG to BG, passed an assessment order, treating the works contract executed for Railways, as sale of goods, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the second respondent, who also dismissed the appeal by order dated 3.4.2008 confirming the order passed by the third respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also moved stay petition, before the first respondent, which was rejected by the first respondent, vide the order impugned herein. Hence, this writ petition.

¶21

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 take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax.

¶22

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

¶23

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 demanded tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of six weeks from today and the

¶24

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

¶25

____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari

¶26

_______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan July 18, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER

¶27

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

¶28

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}

M/s.K.Linga Reddy v. The Joint Commissioner (Ct) (Legal) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.K.Linga Reddy v. The Joint Commissioner (Ct) (Legal) (Fac)

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

M/s. Simhadri Cements Ltd., Alamanda, Vs The Deputry Commercial Tax Officer, Kothavalasa Unit

M/s. Venkateswara Picture House a Partnership firm, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s. Sundaram Motors, (a. Division of Tv Sundaram Lyengar Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) (Audit-I) Central Audit

M/s. Balaji Agencies and Industries, Vs The Commercial TAx Officer No.Ii

M/s. S.R. Dish and Media, Vs The Deputy Comemrcial Tax Officer

M/s. Rks Motors Private Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct), Ltu