Allowed

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

Telangana HC18 Jul 2008WP/15447/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted a writ petition seeking quashing of an order refusing stay on tax penalty recovery. It directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within six weeks as a condition for staying coercive recovery measures pending the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioner to deposit 25% of disputed penalty within six weeks and restraining first respondent from coercive recovery of balance pending appeal.

M/s. S.R. Dish and Media, Vs The Deputy Comemrcial… — Service and Employment | 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 : 15447 of 2008

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. S.R. Dish & Media, Opp: Indian Bank, Punganur- 517 247, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. C.S. Raja Reddy.

.....

PETITIONER

AND

1 The Deputy Comemrcial Tax Officer, Chittoor-I, Circle, Chittoor.

¶13

2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool Division, Kurnool.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 No. 1/2008-2009, dated 8-52008 in refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs. 3,94,326/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and pass

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶18

The Court made the following :

¶19

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

¶20

Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 8.5.2008 passed by the second respondent in Appeal No. 4/2008-2009 refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs.3,94,326/- as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the first respondent not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty pending appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶21

The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of dish antenna system and accessories. The petitioner’s business premises was inspected by the first respondent and proposed to levy tax at 12.5%, which was appealed by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The first respondent also levied penalty by order, dated

¶22

3.1.2008. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent and also filed an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.3,94,326/-, which was rejected by the second respondent vide the order impugned herein. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that consequent to the rejection of the stay petition by the second respondent, the first respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed amount of penalty.

¶25

We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending Appeal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount pending appeal. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No

¶27

costs.

¶28

____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan July 18, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER

¶29

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. S.R. Dish and Media, v. The Deputy Comemrcial 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

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.K.Linga Reddy Vs The Joint Commissioner (Ct) (Legal) (Fac)

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