Disposed

Gudivada Municipality, v. The Superintendent Service Tax

Telangana HC3 Apr 2013WP/9860/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging recovery notices based on a service tax assessment, the High Court stayed coercive recovery steps until the pending stay application before CESTAT is disposed of, without adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to initiate coercive recovery steps pending disposal of the stay application before CESTAT.

Gudivada Municipality, Vs The Superintendent Service… — Banking and Recovery | 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.9860 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 03.04.2013

¶5

Between: Gudivada Municipality .. Petitioner And The Superintendent Service Tax and 5 others .. Respondents

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 9860 OF 2013

¶8

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

¶9

Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 25.01.2012 passed by the respondent No.3, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.4. By order dated 27.08.2012 the respondent No.4 upheld the original order passed by the respondent No.3. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for stay before the respondent No.6 (CESTAT), Bangalore. The said appeal and the stay application are still pending. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice dated 15.03.2013 for recovery of the adjudged amounts purportedly on the basis of the circular dated 01.01.2013 issued by the respondent No.5. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Having regard to the fact that the stay application filed by the petitioner herein along with the main appeal against the order dated

¶13

27.08.2012 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 25.01.2012, 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.

¶14

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 25.01.2012, if not already recovered till the stay application pending before the CESTAT is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

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

¶16

_____________ G.ROHINI, J _______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 03.04.2013 Ivd/ssp

Gudivada Municipality, v. The Superintendent Service Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudivada Municipality, v. The Superintendent Service Tax

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. M.v.Rangaprasad and Company, Vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

M/S Novopan Industries Ltd, Vs Union of India

M/s Maddi Lakshmaiah Company Ltd., Vs Government of India

M/s. Andhra Sugars Ltd, Vs Union of India Represented by its secretary

M/s. M. Ravi Kumar, Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Brodipet Circle, Guntur.

M/s .Bapatla Municipality, Vs The Asst. Commissioner