Telangana High Court
WP/24768/2004 of M/s.Kitchen Applicances India Ltd Vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 30 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24768 of 2004 Between: M/s.Kitchen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI
AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 24768 of 2004
Between:
M/s.Kitchen Applicances India Ltd rep by its Branch in-Charge, Mr.C.Kotilingam
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Commercial Tax Officer Begumpet Circle, Secunderabad.
2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad.
3. The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.
4. The Manager Corporation Bank, CAPS Branch 409-412, Dalamai Towers, Narimanpoint, Mumbai-400 021.
5. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Hyderabad Public School Branch,
6. The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, CAPS Branch, Public Gardens, Hyderabad 500 001.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue aWrit of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugnednotices issued by the 1st Respondent under Section 17 of the APGST Act for recovery ofthe balance during pendency of appeals before the 2nd Respondent and stay applicationsbefore the 3rd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and consequently restrain the1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of disputed taxes ofRs,63,86,687/- Rs67,15,909/- Rs.66,62,656/- & Rs 1,62,90,600/- for the assessment years1997-98 to 2000-01 respectively and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRINIVASA REDDYCounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
The Court made the following :
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.
O R D E R
(Per Sri Justice M.H.S.Ansari)
Heard learned counsel for respective parties.
Petitioner has questioned the demand notices under Section 17 of APGST Act for theassessment years 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.
The said garnishee notices have been issued to the bankers of the petitioner directing thesaid bank not to make any payments to the petitioner unless the tax dues are discharged.The said garnishee notices have been issued as the stay application filed by the petitionerbefore the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) were dismissed. The stay of collection oftax was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (CT) pending disposal of the appealsbefore the 2[nd] respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). A copy of the order ofrejection dated 27.12.2004 has been furnished to us by the learned counsel for thepetitioner. Let the same be kept in the record.
Keeping in view that a statutory appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the 2[nd]respondent in respect of the aforesaid assessment years in question viz., 1997-1998 to2000-2001, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served, if the petitioner isdirected to deposit 50% of the disputed tax, giving credit to the amounts already paidtowards tax, for each of the assessment years in respect of appeals preferred by thepetitioner, within four weeks from the date hereof. If the petitioner complies with the directions as above and deposits 50% of the disputed tax within the time stipulated above,the appellate authority-Respondent No.2 herein shall dispose of the respective appealspending before it, in accordance with law, without insisting upon the payment of balance ofdisputed tax.
Consequently, if the deposit is made within the time stipulated above, the garnishee noticesimpugned in the instant writ petition shall stand set aside.Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with directions as above. No costs.
-------------------------------JUSTICE M.H.S.ANSARI
30[th] December, 2004
------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO
PGS
To
1. The Commercial Tax Officer Begumpet Circle, Secunderabad.
2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad.
3. The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh,Nampally,Hyderabad.
4. The Manager Corporation Bank,CAPS Branch 409-412, Dalamai Towers, Narimanpoint,Mumbai-400 021.
5. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Hyderabad Public School Branch,
6. The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, CAPS Branch, Public Gardens, Hyderabad 500 001.
7. 2 CCs to Spl. Govt. Pleader for Taxes.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI
AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 24768 of 2004
(Per Sri Justice M.H.S.Ansari)