Allowed

M/s. Help Hospitals Private Limited v. The Joint Commissioner (Ct) Legal

Telangana HC25 Oct 2013WP/30610/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge High Court set aside an order rejecting a tax stay application for wanting reasons, directing respondents not to collect disputed tax while the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; writ petition disposed of with direction not to take coercive steps subject to depositing 50% of disputed tax within four weeks.

M/s. Help Hospitals Private Limited Vs The Joint… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.30610 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 25.10.2013

¶5

Between: M/s. Help Hospitals Private Limited .. Petitioner And The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal and 2 others

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.30610 OF 2013

¶10

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

¶11

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 16.02.2013 passed by the 3^rd respondent under the A.P. Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent along with an application for stay of collection of the disputed tax. However, by order dated 22.07.2013 the 2^nd respondent rejected the petitioner’s request for stay. The said order dated 22.07.2013 is assailed in this Writ Petition.

¶12

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri B.Venkatadri, the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.

¶13

The impugned order is sought to be assailed in the writ petition primarily on the ground that the 2^nd respondent failed to assign any reasons while refusing to grant stay.

¶14

On a perusal of the impugned order, we find force in the said submission. Except stating that no prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner, no other reasons were assigned by the 2^nd respondent in the impugned order.

¶15

Having regard to the fact that the statutory appeal is admittedly pending and the petitioner’s tax liability requires consideration in the main appeal, we consider it appropriate to protect the interest of the

¶16

petitioner subject to reasonable terms.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.07.2013 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the assessment order dated 16.02.2013, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within four (4) weeks from today after giving credit to the amounts that have already been paid by the petitioner. No costs.

¶18

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶20

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 25.10.2013 Ivd

M/s. Help Hospitals Private Limited v. The Joint Commissioner (Ct) Legal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Help Hospitals Private Limited v. The Joint Commissioner (Ct) Legal

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

M/S.Choudhary Brothers Hyderabad Vs State of Ap and Others

Vxxxx Vs Xxxxx

Stat Hyderabad Vs M/S.Anantha Lakshmi Textiles(P)Ltd

Mother Theresa Educational Society Vs State Bank of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager

M/s.Sushee Infra Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Mother Theresa Educational Society Vs State Bank of India