Disposed

M/s.Indus Towers Limited,(Formerly known as Indus v. The Commercial Tax officer, Begumpet circle

Telangana HC4 Feb 2011WP/932/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a petition filed by a telecom company regarding a stay of penalty collection. The company admitted non-compliance with a 50% payment directive. Upon learning the company possessed funds for only a 25% deposit, the court extended the payment deadline to the order date.

What did the court decide?

Time for payment of 25% of disputed penalty extended till 04.02.2011.

M/s.Indus Towers Limited,(Formerly known as Indus Vs… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.932 of 2011

¶4

Dated:04.02.2011

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s.Indus Towers Limited.

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

and The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad, And others.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.932 of 2011

¶13

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶14

The writ petition is filed, by a company engaged in the business of providing passive telecom infrastructure support service to the telecom industry, against the proceedings dated 24.12.2010. By the said order, while granting stay of collection of the disputed penalty amount of Rs.79,22,15,458/- levied by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer pending the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the second respondent directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed penalty within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said proceedings. The amount was not paid. The matter was heard at the preliminary stage on 28.01.2011. It transpired on that day that the petitioner could not comply with the orders of stay granted by the second respondent due to certain business financial priorities. Today, when the matter is called, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a cheque for an amount of Rs.19,80,53,865/- (Rupees nineteen crores eighty lakhs fifty three thousand eight hundred and sixty five only), and that the same will be deposited with the first respondent.

¶15

In view of the above, having regard to the totality of the circumstances in the background of the case ex debito justitiae, we deem it appropriate to extend the time for such payment till

¶16

04.02.2011. We feel that this is sufficient redressal in this case. The Writ Petition, with the above observations and direction, shall accordingly stand disposed of. No costs.

¶17

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶18

_____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)

¶19

04.02.2011 vs

M/s.Indus Towers Limited,(Formerly known as Indus v. The Commercial Tax officer, Begumpet circle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Indus Towers Limited,(Formerly known as Indus v. The Commercial Tax officer, Begumpet circle

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

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Vs M/s. Vpm Stores, No. 41/1

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-Iii Vs Shri Jeetendra, Proporietor of

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs M/s. Rafiq Brothers

A.R. Mohan Vs The Commissioner

Mahanadi Bio-tech Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer (OSD)-2

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii, Vs M/s. Vinayaka Agritech Limited