Remanded

M/S. Sonath Wood Industries and 5 Others v. Tax Recovery OFFICER-11, RANGE-11

Telangana HC12 Dec 2022WP/6460/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court was satisfied that the conditional stay order complying with a payment of Rs.7 lakhs was honored. Considering the case's over 14-year pendency, the Court remanded the matter back to the respondent for the petitioner to submit applications regarding non-payment of tax arrears before taking a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The matter remanded to the file of the respondent Tax Recovery Officer to consider submissions on non-payment of arrears; Rs.7 lakhs deposited adjusted.

M/S. Sonath Wood Industries and 5… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

rl il

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

IVONDAY. THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF DECEIVIBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJALBHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6460^{OF 2008}

¶9

Between:

¶10

1- IVI/S. Sonath Wood lndustries,^{Plot No.32,RoadNo 10, lDA, Nacharam,}

¶11

*yAeriOiO, rep^{by its lt/anaging Partner Devendra Kumar S/o Sri Late Devshi}

¶12

Devendra Kumar S/o^{S/o Sri Late Devshi,Aged about 49 years,Occ:} Business

¶13

Laxman S/o late^{Devshi, Agedabout46 years,Occ: Bi-rsiness}

¶14

It/lahendra S/o late^{Devshi, Agedabout40 years, Occ. Business} Petitioners 2 to 4 arc.^{R/o H. No.11 -58, KL.Reddynagar, Nacharam,} Hyderabad-500 076

¶15

Shiv Kumar^{S/o Late Sri Ramnarayan,Aged about 46 years,Occ: Business}

¶16

Smt. Rama Bai Wo^{Sri Shiv Kumar,Aged about 41 years,Occ: Business} Petitioners 5 and 6 are^{R/o H. No. 21-5-14 Opp.Citycollege,Petlaburj,} Hyderabad-500⁰⁰²

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

1 Tax Recovery Officer-1.1 ,^{Range-1'1. 6th floor B-Block, Income Tax Towers,} A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

¶20

...RESPONDENT

¶21

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate^{writ, order or direction morepalticularly one in} ine nature of Wrii^{of lVlandamusdeclaringthe notice daled21-02:2008 issuedby} the respondent^{proposingto put on auction sale of the lmmovable property i'e} factory'shed and land admeasuring^{2,o94.44 sq. yards vide plot No. 32, situated} atnoaONo'lO,lndustrialDeveloPmentArea,Nacharam,Hyderabadstandingin theiointnamesofsthand6thpetitionershereinasbeingarbitrary'illegal' unwarranted discriminatory^{and is a clear violation of Petitioner'sfundamental} rightsguaranteedunderArticlel4&21anda|soofArticle300.Aofthe C-onstitution of lndia and^{consequentlyset a side/quash the same'}

¶22

t.A. NO: 10 F 2008(WPMP NO: 8435 oF 2008)

¶23

Petition under section, 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavrt filed in suppo.rt of tne petiiion'. tn""'nign borrt may be preased stay turther measures on the Notice dated Zl OZ_ZOO} iisueo Oy the respondent addressed to the 5th petitioner proposing to put on a-uctron sare of the subject rmmovabre property ie. factory snea ano]ano?,n"u.rnng 2,094 44 yards vide Plot No' 32' situated at Road- trto r o tnoustria]^{-o"",i"iopn-,'"nt} Hyderabad pending disposat of the Writ plitiil"^""'" " Area, Nacharam,

¶24

Counset for the petitioner: SRI T.V.L. NARASIMHA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. SApNA REDDy

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYA N

¶29

AND

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.B HASKAR REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.646O of 2OO8

¶32

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief ,tusttce Llljal Bhuqan)

¶33

Heard Mr. T.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Sapna Reddy, learned counsei for the sole respondent i.e., the Tax Recovery Officer- 1 1 , Hyderabad.

¶34

Challenge made in the \,rit petition is to the notice dated 2LO2.2O0B issued by the respondent and addressed to the 5rh petitioner^

¶35

Substance of the notice relates to recovery of income tax arrears of M/s. Somanath Wood Industries for the assessment year 2000-01. It is mentioned that there is total arrear demand of Rs.25,56,283.OO for the assessment year

¶36

2OO0-01. The assessee had paid oniy Rs.2.5O lakhs. As there was huge arrears including interest, it was proposed to put to public auction the defaulter's property i.e., Iand and factory building at Plot No.32, Road No.10, IDA, Nacharam, atready

¶37

2 HCJ &^CVI3RJ W.P.No.646O of^2C08

¶38

attached by the^{responclentfor recoveryof the arrear demand'} The case was already^{referred to the Valuation Ce1l for} determination^{of the reserve price for tl-re public auction'}

¶39

This Court by^{order dated27 'O3'2OOB had} admitted the u'rit^{petition for hearing and passed an interini} order to the effect^{that impugned noticedated 2|'O22OO8} would remain^{stayed subject to petitioners paying a sum of} Rs.7 lakhs r,r.ithin three^months.

¶40

On 30.06.2O08, Court^{was informed by learned} counsel for the^{petitioners that the conditional stay order} d,ated 27.03.2008^{was complied u/ith by paying Rs'7 lakhsas} ordered. Accordingly,^{the interim stay grantedwas made} absolute.

¶41

The case is^{pending for more than 14 years now'} Respondent has^{not filed any alfidavit.}

¶42

That being the position^{and having regard to the} long pendency, we are^{of the view that it would meet the ends} of justice if the^{petitionersare givenan opportunity to submit}

¶43

HCJ & CVBRJ W.P.No.6460 of 2008

¶44

before the respondent as to the non-payment of arrear demand.

¶45

Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent. Petitioner shal1 appear before the respondent within 3O days from today and make their respective submission. Thereafter, respondent shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The amount of Rs.7 lakhs already deposited by the petitioners would be adjusted against any future payment that may be made by the petitioners pursuant to such fresh decision that may be taken l by the respondent.

¶46

This disposes of the Writ Petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this

¶48

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶49

¶50

SO/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r' -"'-SECTIOIfOFFICER

¶51

To, 1 One CC to SRI T.V.L. NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 2 One CC to Ms. SAPNA REDDY. Advocate tOPUCI Two CD Copies B N I}S

?lton^

HlGH COURT

DATED:1 211212022

ORDER

WP.No.6460 of 2008

-(H TAT€
o^l
t
'i+
.){'. (v
clo ,;l I
y*B un im
-f.,
<br>-!g
r#/

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

?r^q. \O\r>g "

M/S. Sonath Wood Industries and 5 Others v. Tax Recovery OFFICER-11, RANGE-11

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sonath Wood Industries and 5 Others v. Tax Recovery OFFICER-11, RANGE-11

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

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Tsrtc) Vs Sri Malothu Nehru

Syed Durvesh Moinuddin Shah Vs The Superintendent of Customs

Uco Bank And 2 Others Vs Venkata Ramana Rao Maganti

P.Babu Rao, Vs Airports Authority of India, and Ano.

M/s.Lns Infrastructures Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Meher Stone Crusher Vs The State of Telangana