Disposed

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, v. The Asst. Commissioner

Telangana HC10 Apr 2013WP/10950/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to restrain coercive recovery of seized amounts pending. The Court directed respondents not to initiate recovery steps while the petitioner's appeal and stay application remain pending before CESTAT.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to initiate coercive steps for recovery of adjudged amounts till the stay application pending before CESTAT is disposed of.

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, Vs The Asst. Commissioner — Customs and Excise | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.10950 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 10.04.2013

¶5

Between: Jaggaiahpet Municipality .. Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner and 4 others .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 10950 OF 2013

¶8

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶9

Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 14.10.2011 passed by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. By order dated 24.02.2012 the 2^nd respondent upheld the original order passed by the 1^st respondent. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 13.03.2013 along with an application for stay before the

¶10

4^th respondent (CESTAT). The said appeal and the stay application are still pending. In the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent issued the impugned notice dated 21.03.2013 for recovery of the adjudged amounts purportedly on the basis of the circular dated 01.01.2013 issued by the 3^rd respondent. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶11

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V.Gopalakrishna Gokhale, the learned Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise.

¶12

It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for both the parties that in similar circumstances, various writ petitions were disposed of by this Court directing that no coercive steps should be initiated for recovery of the amount of liability determined against the petitioners therein till the stay petitions were decided by the appellate authorities.

¶13

Having regard to the fact that the stay application filed by the

¶14

petitioner herein along with the main appeal against the order dated 24.02.2012 is admittedly pending before the CESTAT, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the amount as determined in the original order dated 14.10.2011, if not already recovered, till the stay application filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the CESTAT. It is made clear that the stay application as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be decided by the CESTAT without having regard to any of the observations made in this order.

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the amounts adjudged in the original order dated 14.10.2011, if not already recovered, till the stay application pending before the CESTAT is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶17

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶18

_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 10.04.2013 Ivd/ssp

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, v. The Asst. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, v. The Asst. Commissioner

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. Srinidha Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)

Jaggaiahpet Municipality, Vs The Asst. Commissioner

M/s Enmar Logistics Private Limited, Vs The Deputy Commissioner

M/s. Mohan Enterprises, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise

M/s.Laasya Constructions, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Smt. Hetal H. Doshi Vs Sri Pankaj M. Doshi