Allowed

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC1 Feb 2010WP/1573/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the attachment of the petitioner's bank account pending the disposal of a pending revision petition challenging a penalty order under the CST Act, directing respondents not to take coercive recovery steps during the interim.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of disputed penalty; impugned attachment order set aside.

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶4

W.P.NO.1573 OF 2010

¶5

01-02-2010

¶6

BETWEEN;

¶7

M/s.Indus Towers Limited rep. by its Circle Finance Head, P.Ramakanth

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet circle and others

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶13

AND

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶15

W.P.NO.1573 OF 2010

¶16

ORAL ORDER: (Per RR,J)

¶17

The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing infrastructur support to telecommunication operators and is a registered dealer unde the provisions of the C.S.T Act, 1956 on the rolls of the Commercial Ta Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad. The order impugned in this wr petition is the notice dated 23-12-2009, and the consequent ban attachment notice dated 22.01.2010, issued by the 1^st respondent fo recovery of penalty of Rs.17,05,00,000/-.

¶18

By his order dated 05-10-2009 the first respondent imposed penalt holding that the petitioner had misused the Form-C declaration unde Section 10(d) read with Section 10-A of CST Act. Aggrieved thereby th petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3^rd respondent along with a sta

¶19

application. By his order dated 30.11.2009 the 3^rd respondent rejected sta petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the 3^rd responden rejecting stay, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 2^nd responden It is not in dispute that the said revision petition filed before the 2ⁿ respondent is still pending. M/s Sri Lakshmi Kumaran and Sridharan Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the revision petition i listed for hearing tomorrow and it was improper on the part of th respondents to attach the petitioner’s bank account in the interregnum.

¶20

As the revision petition, seeking stay of collection of the disputed ta pending disposal of the appeal by the 3^rd respondent, is pendin adjudication before the 2^nd respondent we consider it appropriate to direc the respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the dispute penalty till the revision petition pending before the 2^nd respondent i disposed of and communicated to the petitioner herein. Consequently, th impugned attachment order is also set aside.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. N order as to costs.

¶22

______________

¶23

GODA RAGHURAM,J

¶24

__________________

¶25

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶26

1^st FEBRUARY 2010. TSNR

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., v. The Commercial Tax Officer

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

Laxman Chit Fund and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Jyothi Chits and Finances Vs The Commissioenr of Income Tax ( Tds )

Devi Chits and Finances, Vs The Commissioenr of Income Tax ( Tds )

M/s.Madhava Constructions, Civil Contractors H.No.10-1-471 Vs The Addl.Commissioner (Ct) Legal, Fac,O/o.Commissioner

M/s. Sri Sai Communications Net Work Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Carrier Air - Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd., Vs Joint Commissioner ( Ct ) Legal )