Disposed

M/s Gupta Road Lines, v. Itchapuram Municipality

Telangana HC28 Nov 2012WP/35179/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a special notice enhancing property tax. The Bench held that coercive recovery steps cannot be initiated until the petitioner's pending appeal/revision against the notice is disposed of by a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Restriction imposed on the respondent from initiating any coercive steps for recovery of the enhanced property tax without first disposing of the appeal/revision by a reasoned order.

M/s Gupta Road Lines, Vs Itchapuram… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.35179 of 2012

¶3

Date: 28.11.2012

¶4

Between: M/s. Gupta Road Lines, (formerly Jaibharath Transport), Rep. by its Branch Manager, G. Tulsi Rao, S/o.G. Somayya, Situated at 2-3-70, A.S. Peta, NH – 5, Itchapuram, Srikakulam District AND Itchapuram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Itchapuram, Srikakulam District.

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

… Respondent

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.35179 of 2012

¶9

ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram):

¶10

Heard Sri Sharad Sanghi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Shanti Neelam, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality.

¶11

The special notice dated 11.09.2011 proposing enhancement of property tax in respect of a property bearing Door No.2-3-70, A.S.Peta, NH–5, Itchapuram, Srikakulam District, is assailed in this writ petition.

¶12

By the impugned notice, the pre-existing tax of Rs.4,222/- is proposed to be enhanced to Rs.12,954/-, on the basis of the annual rental value specified therein. In an accompanying memorandum, the respondent Municipality has also indicated the plinth area, the nature of the usage and the type of construction, on the basis of which the monthly rental value is determined to be Rs.6352.86 ps; and the enhanced property tax is determined on that basis. Aggrieved by the proposal for enhancement, the petitioner preferred a memorandum of Appeal/Revision on 10.10.2011.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that without disposing of the revision, the respondent is trying to initiate coercive steps for recovery of the enhanced property tax.

¶14

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent not to initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the enhanced property tax as proposed in the Special

¶15

Notice dated 11.09.2011, without first disposing of, by a reasoned order the appeal/revision preferred by the petitioner on 10.10.2011 and communicating the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶17

Date: 28.11.2012

¶18

JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.35179 of 2012 (order of the Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶23

Date: 28.11.2012

¶24

M/s Gupta Road Lines, v. Itchapuram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Gupta Road Lines, v. Itchapuram Municipality

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. Swarna Tollway (P) Ltd., Nellore district

M/s. Vodafone South Limited, Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Vs M/s Swarna Tollway (P) Ltd., Nellore, Nellore District

Rnz Travels, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)

E.Kistaiah Vs The Secretary

Noori Travels, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer