Disposed

M/s. Omega Granite, v. Licensing Officer

Telangana HC27 Jan 2016WP/43/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh set aside the demand notice dated 21.12.2015 regarding life tax liability and directed the respondent authority to decide the show cause notice afresh after considering petitioners' objections.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the demand notice dated 21.12.2015 and directed the Licensing Officer to decide the show cause notice afresh within four weeks after considering petitioners' objections and granting an oppor

M/s. Omega Granite, Vs Licensing Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 43 OF 2016

¶5

Date: 27.01.2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Omega Granite & another … Petitioners And Licensing Officer, Regional Transport Authority, Nellore, & others.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 43 OF 2016

¶12

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

In this writ petition, the petitioners seek the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the demand notice in Ref.No.6346/B1/2013, dated 21.12.2015, as illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to determine the life tax liability @ 7½ % on the value of the dumper at the time of entry into the Andhra Pradesh in July, 2013 in accordance with the report of the surveyor and fix the life tax liability as Rs.61,740/- and to direct the 1^st & 2^nd respondents to release the dumper on payment of Rs.61,740/- and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶15

Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the 1^st respondent while issuing demand notice, dated 21.12.2015, did not consider the petitioners’ explanations/objections, dated 15.07.2015 and 17.10.2015, to the show cause notice, dated 14.11.2013. We have perused the order, dated 12.08.2013, passed by this Court in W.P.No.23435 of 2013. In that writ petition the petitioners sought declaration that the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle loaded with engine parts as illegal and arbitrary. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the 1^st respondent to assess

¶16

the value of the vehicle within one week from the date of the order and intimate the life tax payable by the petitioners within the said period and the vehicle was directed to be released on payment of life tax as determined by the 1^st respondent.

¶17

The 1^st respondent while determining the life tax and issuing demand notice, dated 21.12.2015, on the basis thereof, did not consider the petitioners’ explanations/objections at all. In view thereof, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the demand notice may be set aside and respondent No.1 may be directed to consider the show cause notice, dated 14.11.2013, afresh in the light of the explanations/objections raised by the petitioners. Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioners, also has no objection for adopting this course of action. Hence, we dispose of the writ petition by the following order:

¶18

“Demand notice, dated 21.12.2015, is set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to decide the show cause notice, dated 14.11.2013, after considering the petitioners’ explanations/objections, dated 15.07.2015 and 17.10.2015, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioners are directed to communicate this order to the 1^st respondent within a period of one week from today. Respondent No.1 while deciding the show cause notice shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.” Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶19

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶20

________________________ S.V. BHATT, J

¶21

Date: 27.01.2016

¶22

M/s. Omega Granite, v. Licensing Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Omega Granite, v. Licensing Officer

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

G Sudharshan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Gouri Prasad, Vs Regional Deputy DirectorTown and Country Planning

Prof Kodanda Rama Reddy, Vs The union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests

Ponduri Pavani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

T.Pandari Vs The a.P.State of A.P.

Ambati Korlayya , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh