Telangana High Court
WP/28485/2007 of M/s. Diamond Dot Vs The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) on 31 December 2007
SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.28485 OF 2007 Between: M/s.Diamond Dot rep. by its Partner Sri R.Bala Murali Krishna. …Petitioner. AND The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), O/o. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.28485 OF 2007
Between:
M/s.Diamond Dot rep. by its Partner
Sri R.Bala Murali Krishna.
…Petitioner.
AND
The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), O/o. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad and two others.
..Respondents.
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARIANDTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No.28485 OF 2007
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)
The present writ petition is filed by the petitionerseeking to declare the order of the Additional Commissioner (CT)Legal, Hyderabad in CCT’s Ref.No.LIII(2)/748/2007, dated20.11.2007, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same andto interdict the 3[rd] respondent from collecting tax in dispute inpursuance of the order of the assessment for the period fromJune, 2005 to March, 2007 during pendency of the appeal beforethe appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Legal.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that againstthe assessment order for June, 2005 to March, 2007, the petitionerpreferred appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). The petitioner also filed stay application seeking stay of collectionof the disputed tax. But the said application was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner filed revision before the AdditionalCommissioner (CT) (Legal), who rejected the same. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel forCommercial Tax and perused the material available on record.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for thepetitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and theappeal is pending before the 2[nd] respondent and at this juncture, ifthe relief as to the stay of the proceedings is not entertained and ifthe recovery of disputed tax is effected, the very purpose of filingthe said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to theaggrieved party, would be defeated.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and inview of submission made by the learned Counsel that thepetitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and in viewof the pendency of the appeal, without expressing any opinion onthe merits of the case, we feel it is a fit case wherein stay can begranted, but subject to imposition of certain conditions.
Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery ofdisputed tax for the period from June, 2005 to March, 2007 till thedisposal of the appeal pending before the 2[nd] respondent subjectto the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed taxin question, within a period of six weeks from today. However, itis made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit tothe above stipulated sum.
Subject to the above direction the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.
______________________
T.MEENA KUMARI, J.
_______________
G. ROHINI, J.
Date:31-12-2007.Note: Furnish operative portionof the order by wire atparty’s costs.(B/o)GS