Dismissed

M/s. Lpl Infrastructures Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Lakshmi Sree v. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessments)

Telangana HC23 Dec 2022WP/12723/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed in 2000 seeking directions regarding tax assessment rectification and refund, taken up for hearing in 2022 after decades of inactivity, was dismissed as no useful purpose could be served.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; miscellaneous applications are closed; no order as to costs.

M/s. Lpl Infrastructures Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Lakshmi Sree Vs… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[32e5 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:^'12723 OF 2000

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. LPL lnfrastructures Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Lakshmi Sree, Projects Ltd), Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Chaparala Nagesh, S/o. Bagavan Das, Aged about 45 year, B-4 Raising Sun Apartments, West Marredpally,Secunderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax (Assessments), SR-3, 7th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh,

¶11

M/s. GOA CARBON LTD., Dempo House, Campal, Panaji.

¶12

The Branch Manager, Union Bank of lndra, Daulat Building 4th Floor, 8th June Road, St.lnez, PB.NO.11, Panaji,

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st Respondent in non-passing of orders on the applications filed by the Petitioner on 19-3-99 under Sec.'1 54 of the lncome Tax Act and the action of the 1st Respondent in levying interest under Sections 2348 & 234C and also 220 of the lncome Tax Act,1 961 and recovering the amounts contrary to the embargo placed Sec.205 of the Act as illegal, without^jurisdiction and the consequent recovery through notice dated 10-8-99 under Sec.226(3) of the Act as arbitrary and without^jurisdiction and directing the 'lst Respondent to refund the amount of Rs.9,41 ,146/- to the petitioner with interest.

¶15

l.A. NO: I OF 2000(WPMP. NO: 16207 OF 2000)

¶16

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to restrain the 1st Respondent from recovering any further taxes pending disposal of the Writ Petition or else the petitioner will be put to serious loss and agony, and pass such order or orders as are deemed fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VIJAY HINDU^{FORM V K MOORTHY} Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^{M/S.B. SAPNAREDDY FOR J V PRASAD} (sc FoR rNcoME rAX)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No 2 and 3:-'} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 12723 of 2OOO

¶23

ORDER: eer the l-lon'ble the ChbI Justice Ujjal BhuAaft)

¶24

Heard Mr. Vijay Hindu, learned counsel representing

¶25

Mr. M.V.K.Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

At the outset, he made a prayer for adjournment on the ground that his senior will argue the matter.

¶27

2.1. The writ petition is of the year 2000 ald is now being taken up in the year 2022.

¶28

From the docket proceedings we find that repeated adjournments were sought for and were taken on behalf of the petitioner right from 17.07.2000 up to 03.06.20 16, rn,hereafter the case has been iisted today

¶29

Therefore, we are not inclined to grant adjournment.

¶30

\ \

¶31

Prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to respondent No.1 i.e., Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

¶32

r----

¶33

(Assessments), Hyderabad, to pass appropriate order on on the rectification petition filed by the petitioner 1 9.03. 1 999 under Section¹ 54 of the Income Ta-x Act, 196 1. Further prayer made is lor a direction to respondent No. 1 to refund an amount of Rs.9,41, 146.00 u,ith interest.

¶34

This case was admitted on 16.O8.2000, but withdut any stay.

¶35

¶36

At this distalt point of time, we are of the view that no useful purpose^q,ould be served by issuing any direction to respondent No.1 as sought for by the petitioner. Petitioner has also not mentioned the assessment year in relation to which the assessment order was passed which petitioner sought rectification by filing application. After 22123 years, no direction can be issued as sought for by the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the assessment order of which rectification is sought for was an appealable order, though petitioner has not mentioned anything either in the writ affidavit or by {iling subsequent affidavit whether it had Iiled appeal before the appellate authority.

¶37

B. That being the position, we see no^good ground^to

¶38

continue the u,rit proceedings.

¶39

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶40

Misceilaneous applications pending, if an1 , shall

¶41

To,

¶42

stand closed. However, there shaJl be no order as to costs. SD/. C. PRAVEEN KI'MAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶43

//TRUE COPY// e SECTION OFFICER

¶44

One CC to Sri. M V K Moorthy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. J V Prasad (SC for income Tax) [OPUC]

¶45

Two CD Copies

TJ GJP LD(

HIGH COURT

DATED:2311212022

ORDER

WP.No.12723 of 2000

!
1 l{ I4 16'
o
k
e
[ 7 rEB 2S8
o()-)t tr
* D€ c ,t

¶53

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

F{'"&
t
09 ,e
*

M/s. Lpl Infrastructures Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Lakshmi Sree v. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessments)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Lpl Infrastructures Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Lakshmi Sree v. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessments)

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

Mohd. Rafeeq Ahmed Vs The Union of India

Principal Commissioner of Customs, Vs M/s. Edelweiss Commodities Services Limited

Smt K.Madhavi Vs Union of India

Brij Gopal Fathepuria Vs Defence Estates Officer Sec.Bad and Anothe

M/s Venkataramana Furnitures and Components Ltd., Vs Superintendent of Central Excise

K.P.Steels Limited, Secunderabad, Vs The Commissioner of Customs and Central Exise