Disposed

M/S. Stone Mart v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Sept 2018WP/33825/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed at admission. Court directed release of detained vehicle and goods upon furnishing an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs.2.04 lakhs. Respondents permitted two months to conclude pending show cause proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to release vehicle and goods upon petitioner furnishing unconditional bank guarantee of Rs.2.04 lakhs and complete proceedings within two months.

M/S. Stone Mart Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.33825 OF 2018

¶5

ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan}

¶6

Heard Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce (Andhra Pradesh), and the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes (Andhra Pradesh) and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶7

The proceedings, impugned in this Writ Petition, is the notice dated 14.09.2018 whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause why action should not be initiated against them to collect normal seinerage fee together with market value of the steel grey colour granite polished slabs for a quantity of 3129 square feet; and why action should not be initiated against them as per G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 29.01.2018. The petitioner’s grievance is that, though these goods were being transported from Martur in Prakasam District to Assam, the vehicle was stopped at Vijayawada by the authorities; and both the vehicle, and the goods being transported therein, have been detained on the ground that documentary evidence, relating to payment of normal seigniorage fee was not produced.

¶8

While Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit, not without justification, that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of a ‘mineral dealer’; and he is neither liable to pay normal seigniorage fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.17, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 29.01.2018, nor is he required to carry a transit pass as stipulated under Rule

¶9

¶10

6 (iv) thereof, these are all contentions which the petitioner can as well urge in its reply to the show cause notice issued by the authorities concerned. Since the petitioner’s vehicle has been detained along with the goods, and any delay in adjudication pursuant to the show cause notice dated 14.09.2018, would cause substantial injury to them, we called upon the learned Government Pleader for Industries to ascertain the liability which may be fastened on the petitioner in case the show cause notice is confirmed by a final order. Learned Government Pleader for Industries, on instructions, would submit that a sum of Rs.2.04 lakhs can be imposed on the petitioner.

¶11

As the proceedings under challenge is only a show cause notice to which the petitioner can submit a reply, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the vehicle and the goods on the petitioner furnishing an unconditional bank guarantee from a Nationalised Bank, for a sum of Rs.2.04 lakhs to be kept valid for a period of six (6) months, in favour of the second respondent. On their furnishing such a bank guarantee, the subject goods and the vehicle shall be released forthwith.

¶12

The petitioner is also permitted to submit their reply to the show cause notice within two (2) weeks from today. The second respondent shall consider the petitioner’s reply, give them a reasonable opportunity of an oral hearing, pass a reasoned order thereafter in accordance with law, and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise, culminating in a final order being passed and communicated to the petitioner, shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from today. For a period of ten (10) days from the date on which a copy of the final

¶13

¶14

order is served on the petitioner, the bank guarantee shall not be en-cashed.

¶15

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶16

_______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)

¶17

__________________________________ (KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J)

¶18

20^th September 2018

¶19

NOTE: Issue CC today
B/O
RRB

M/S. Stone Mart v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Stone Mart v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Vs M/S Ad Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd.

The Principal Comissiomner of Central Excise Vs M/s Divis Laboratories Ltd, Sez Unit

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Vsp Vs M/S.Pennar Industries Limited

The Principal Commissioner of Service Tax Vs M/S. Archies Projects Private Limited

Salla Chandra Reddy Vs Punjab National Bank

The Comissioner of Customs Vs M/s. Hbl Power Systems Ltd.