Telangana High Court
WP/44681/2017 of SRI LAKSHMI TRADERS Vs CTO on 29 December 2017
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.44681 of 2017 29.12.2017 Between: M/s.Sri Lakshmi Traders, Chittoor ..Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor and others ..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:
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 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.44681 of 2017
29.12.2017
Between: M/s.Sri Lakshmi Traders, Chittoor
..Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor and others ..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.G.Narendra Chetty Counsel for the respondents: Mr.S.Suri Babu, learned special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes (A.P.) The Court made the following:
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)
This writ petition is filed questioning proceedings, dated 23.11.2017, in A.O.No.89368, of respondent No.1, whereby re-assessment for different tax periods was made in a single order.
2. As regards the discrepancy in respect of the quantum of demand, which is reflected on the last page of the impugned proceedings, Mr.S.Suri Babu, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes (A.P.) appearing for the respondents, has fairly conceded that ex facie there is discrepancy in the quantum of demand and therefore, he will advise respondent No.1 to correct the same and issue a revised order in that regard.
3. With regard to the merits of the case, Mr.G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not dispute the fact that against the impugned proceedings, an appeal before the departmental authority and a further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are available. In view of availability of these alternative remedies, which, in our opinion, are efficacious, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for adjudication on merits.
4. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, placing on record the undertaking given by the learned special standing counsel as above and with liberty to the petitioner to avail the aforementioned alternative remedies.
5. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, I.A.No.1 of 2017 filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands dismissed as infructuous.
__________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
__________________
P.KESHAVA RAO, J