Disposed

M/s Commercial Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., v. Itchapuram Municipality, represented by

Telangana HC17 Dec 2012WP/35556/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order disposed of a writ petition challenging a property tax enhancement notice. The Court stayed coercive recovery of the enhanced tax pending the outcome of the petitioner's pending appeal/revision but directed immediate payment of pre-existing tax and any arrears.

What did the court decide?

Stayed coercive recovery of enhanced tax; ordered payment of pre-existing tax of Rs. 9,785/- and any arrears within two weeks.

M/s Commercial Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 35556 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 17-12-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s Commercial Cargo Movers Pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Manager Ranver Singh Danghi.

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And Ichapuram Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Ichapuram, Srikakulam Dist.

¶8

…Respondent.

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶10

Writ Petition No. 35556 of 2012

¶11

Oral order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner by a misconception assails the Special Notice of property tax enhancement dated 11-9-2011 issued by the respondentMunicipality presuming it to be a demand notice, in respect of premises bearing No. 2-3-78/A, AS Pet, NH-5 (W), Ichapuram, Srikakulam District. The Special Notice dated

¶14

11-9-2011 proposes enhancement of property tax from Rs.9,785/- to Rs.15,943/-, half yearly, for reasons annexed to the Special Notice. The petitioner submitted “a memorandum of appeal grounds” on 28-92011 seeking confirmation of the old tax, of Rs.9.785/-.

¶15

According to the petitioner his appeal/revision has not been disposed of. In any event we do not find on record or pleaded, any demand notice issued pursuant to the Special Notice dated 11-92011. However apprehending initiation of coercive process by the respondent-Municipality to collect the enhanced property tax is this writ petition filed.

¶16

In the facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the enhanced property tax of Rs.15,943/-

¶17

, half yearly till the disposal of the petitioner’s appeal/revision dated 28-9-2011. The petitioner shall however to liable to pay without any arrears the pre-existing property tax of Rs.9,785/-; and if any arrears remain on that account, the same shall be remitted to the respondentMunicipality within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and if not so remitted, the respondent-Municipality shall be entitled to recover the arrears of pre-existing property tax, in accordance with law.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶19

_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶20

17^th December, 2012 GRR

¶21

_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

M/s Commercial Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., v. Itchapuram Municipality, represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Commercial Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd., v. Itchapuram Municipality, represented by

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

M/s.Aabha Mouldings Vs Union of India

Commissioner of Income Tax - Ii, Vs M/s. The Andhra Pradesh State Co-op Bank Ltd.

Indian Oil Coopn.Ltd. Vsp Vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited

Andhra PRadesh State Seed Certification Agency Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii

P. Hanmanth Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh