Telangana High Court
WP/28177/2007 of M/s. Vijaya Cotton Ginning Mill, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer, on 28 December 2007
T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:28177 OF 2007 Dated:28.12.2007 Between: M/s. Vijaya Cotton Ginning Mill, Thimmapuram, Guntur District rep., by its Managing Partner P. Ravindra Babu ..Petitioner And 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Chilakaluripet and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
&
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:28177 OF 2007
Dated:28.12.2007
Between:
M/s. Vijaya Cotton Ginning Mill,
Thimmapuram,
Guntur District rep., by its
Managing Partner
P. Ravindra Babu
..Petitioner
And
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.
1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Chilakaluripet and another.
..Respondents.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:28177 OF 2007
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking todeclare the action of the 2[nd] respondent in rejecting the stayapplication by proceedings, dated 13.11.2007 in CCT’sRef.No.LV/4/757/2007 as arbitrary and illegal and consequent to grantstay of collection of the disputed demand for the assessment years1995-96 and 1996-97, pending disposal of the appeals before theSales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by therevision proceedings as to the assessment, appeals have beenpreferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner hasalso moved applications before the 2[nd] respondent seeking stay ofcollection of the disputed tax. But the 2[nd] respondent rejected the stayapplications. Pursuant to the said rejection orders, the 1[st] respondentis threatening to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax.Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perusedthe material available on record.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner thatthe appeals against the revision proceedings are pending before theSales Tax Appellate Tribunal and at this stage, the 2[nd] respondent isnot justified in rejecting the stay applications. It is further contendedthat taking advantage of the rejection of stay, the 1[st] respondent isthreatening to take coercive steps and in these circumstances, if therelief of stay is not entertained and if the recovery of disputed tax iseffected, the very purpose of filing the appeal before tribunal would be defeated.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the factthat the appeals are pending before the Tribunal, without expressingany opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein staycan be granted, but subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed taxpending disposal of the appeals before the Tribunal subject to thecondition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax of eachassessment year, within a period of six weeks from today. However, itis made clear that the amount paid if any, shall be given credit to theabove stipulated sum.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.No order as to costs.
________________________
Justice T. Meena Kumari
_________________
Justice G. Rohini
Date: 28[th] December, 2007
Nn/Gurc.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
&
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
28/12/2007