Dismissed

L.Malla Goud Bhiknoor Nizamabad v. Prohandexcise Spntd Nizamabadandanr

Telangana HC3 Nov 2008WP/19518/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition under Article 226, holding that a notice informing the petitioner of the availability of a one-time settlement scheme with waiver of penal interest was purely informational and did not constitute a demand sufficient to attract writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

L.Malla Goud Bhiknoor Nizamabad Vs Prohandexcise… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19518 of 2002

¶4

Between:

¶5

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶6

AND

¶7

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

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

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent No.: .

¶11

The Court made the following :

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

¶16

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19518 of 2002

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

The petitioner was given lease/privilege of selling arrack in respect of shop Nos.2 and 3 of Bhiknoor Village and Mandal during excise year 1989-1990 i.e., from 01.10.1989 to 30.09.1990. He alleges that he could not run the shops due to extremists’ (PWG) threats. He closed the shops and he did not pay excise arrears. First respondent issued impugned notice dated 22.08.2002 calling upon the petitioner to avail one time settlement (OTS) offered by the Government vide their orders in G.O.Ms.No.320 dated 10.06.2002. As a policy the Government decided to waive penal interest in respect of excise arrears payable to it. Aggrieved by the impugned notice, instant writ petition is filed.

¶20

A perusal of the impugned notice would show that first respondent only informed the petitioner regarding the facility of OTS by availing waiver of penal interest on excise arrears as per G.O. referred to above. It is always open to the petitioner to dispute the amount or inform his option to first respondent. When only information was given to avail OTS, no writ would lie.

¶21

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶22

(V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶23

03^rd November, 2008 GHN

L.Malla Goud Bhiknoor Nizamabad v. Prohandexcise Spntd Nizamabadandanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Malla Goud Bhiknoor Nizamabad v. Prohandexcise Spntd Nizamabadandanr

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.Prabhakar, Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Ch.Madhu, Vs The Regional Manager

G. Ravi Kumar, Vs the a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Regional Manager

G. Venkata Subbaiah Vs The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent

R.Venkata Subbaiah Gound Vs The Prohibition and excise

Vidya Jyothi Degree College, Stn.Ghanapur, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation