Allowed

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy Educational Society v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Oct 2024WP/2873/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging tax demand notices. The Court, relying on a prior Connected matter interim order, set aside the impugned notice and directed respondents to allow deposit adjustment towards future dues.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 18.09.2017 set aside; respondents directed to adjust deposited amount towards future house tax dues.

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy Educational Society Vs… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰²¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2873 OF 2O18

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy Educational Societv, Reqistration No. l713l1991 rep. by its Secretary, Sri Ch.Venugopal Reddyj plot N6.2-1-44, Street No.4, Osmania University Road, Nallakunta, Hyderabdd-SOO 044.

¶10

Bharat lnstitute of Engineering 8s Technology, (Pharmacy Building A 868 Block) Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent Plot No.2-144, Str6et No.4, Osmania University Road, Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500 044.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of T_elangana, Rep by its Secretary, Panchyat Raj Rural Development Depa rtment, Secretariat Bu ild irigs, Hyder abad'-22

¶14

Grampanchayat Mangalpally, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R District, Rep. by its Executive Officer

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) declaring that rule 4, 5 & 7 and the rules relating to certain taxes and lodging of monies received by Grampanchayat and payment of monies from Grampanchayat funds made in G.O. 30 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development R dated2O-'1-1995are illegal beyond the powers of Gram Panchayat being contrary to seclion 60 and 61 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act 1994. b) declare that the 2nd Respondent has no power to levy, demand a collect House Tax and Library Tax in the absence of Rules prescribing minimum and maximum rates in regard to basis of levy adopted by the 2nd Respondent (as required under Section 61 (3) of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and consequently declare that 2nd respondent has

¶17

no power or authority to issue Tax demand/Bill No.3B1, 3g2, 383 & 3g4 dated 18.9.2017.

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased pleased to suspend the impugned Tax demand Bill Nos.3g1,3B2, 383 & 3g4 dt:18.9t.2017 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION N0.2873 0F 2018

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel lor the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the record.

¶27

Learned counsei for the petitioners submits that in a connected matter the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4147 OI 2012. set aside the impugned demand notice dated 03.02.2012 ancl directed the respondents to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioners, in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 16.02.2012 and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition as weil.

¶28

Learned Assistant Government pleader

¶29

representing learned Additional Advocate General has not disputed the submissions madc by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶30

¶31

,+. In view of the submission made by both sides, the rvrit petition 1S disposed of by setting aside the impugned notice dated 18.09.2017 and the respondents are directed to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioners, in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 16.02.2012 passed by a Ilench of this Court. The petitioners shall be entitled to adjustment of the aforesaid amount towards dues rvhich may be payable by them on account of house tax in future. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Miscelianeous petitions pending, if any, shall s;tand closed.

¶33

SD/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -, ,^<,'l$. -

¶34

SECTIO-N.6FFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

The Secretary,^{Panchyat Raj Rural DevelopmentDepartment'Secretariat} Bu i ld i^{n gs,} St'ate^{of Tela ng ana, l1y det aoao- z z}

¶37

The Executive^{officer, GrampanchayatMangalpally, lbrahimpatnam Mandal'} R.R District,

¶38

One CC^{to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU'AdvocatelOPUCl}

¶39

' Two CCs^{to ADDLADVOCATE GENERAL'HighCourtfor the Stateof} TJlangana at^HYderabad. [OUT]

¶40

Two CD CoPies.

¶41

BSK

¶42

LS /:>

¶43

HIGIH COURT

¶44

DATED:0111012024

¶45

lHE sIA
(.
0 3 t:[ 2U{
L
I

¶46

ORDIER

¶47

WP.No.2873 of 2018

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

g coFi'
\ blrt lt14'

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy Educational Society v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintareddy Madhusudhan Reddy Educational Society v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasamalla Rajesham Vs The State of Telangana

K Gopal Krishna Rao Vs Cooperative Tribunal and 3 Others

M/s Deccan Power Products (P) Ltd., Vs The Controller of Legal Metrology

S.Gopal Vs State of Telangana

Bandla Madhu Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Konda Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana