Allowed

M/s. Cantronics Office Equipments Private Limited, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Telangana HC5 Feb 2010WP/2302/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a stay application in tax proceedings for lack of recorded reasons. The High Court held the order unsustainable due to absence of reasoning, quashed it without imposing costs, and directed the revenue authority to pass a fresh order with reasons while allowing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the stay application was quashed. The petitioner's writ petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order recording reasons.

M/s. Cantronics Office Equipments Private Limited… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 2302 of 2010

¶3

Dated: 05-02-2010

¶4

Between: M/s Cantronics Office Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Mrs. Padma Mazumdar and The Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad.

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

…Respondent.

¶7

Oral order: (Per GR, J)

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Koundinya, learned Special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes for the respondents.

¶9

The order of the 2^nd respondent dated 30-12-2009 rejecting grant of stay in a pending appeal directed against an order of assessment dated 1- 9-2009 passed by the 1^st respondent under the APGST Act 1957 for the assessment year 2003-04, is assailed herein. The order impugned reads as under:

¶10

“M/s Cantronics Office Equipment P. Ltd., Adj.Kirloskar Hospital, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, the appellants herein, filed this appeal against the assessment orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Abids Division, Hyderabad for the year 2003-04 under the APGST Act. Along with the appeal petition the appellants have also filed application for stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,33,539/-. The said application was posted for hearing on

¶11

30-12-2009. In response to the hearing notice, the appellants Authorised Representative has appeared before me and argued the Stay Petition.

¶12

I have heard the arguments of the Authorised Representative and perused the grounds of Stay application and gone through the impugned assessment order carefully. In the absence of recorded evidence in support of the contentions raised therein prima facie, I find no case to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,33,539/-. I, therefore,

¶13

refuse to order of stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,33,539/-. Accordingly, the stay application is rejected.”

¶14

It is fairly conceded by the learned Special standing counsel that the order cannot be sustained as it is bereft of reasons. In view of this concession, we are not inclined to impose exemplary costs, which would have otherwise followed having regard to the degree of perversity of the order. The order cannot ex facie be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The 2^nd respondent shall now pass an order afresh on the stay application of the petitioner which we hope and trust would record reasons for the conclusion.

¶15

The writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.

¶16

__________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 5^th February, 2010. GRR

M/s. Cantronics Office Equipments Private Limited, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Cantronics Office Equipments Private Limited, 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

Vennela Shopping and Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India, rep.by secretary, Government of India

M/s. Maheswara Getiti Marketing Private Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Bodedla Techonologies and Marketing Private Ltd. Vs Union of India, rep.by Secretary

S. Koteswar Goud, Vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authori ty

Addepalli Prathap Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Addepalli Pratap Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh