Telangana High Court
WP/27926/2007 of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies Ongole Vs The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, on 28 December 2007
T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:27926 OF 2007 Dated:28.12.2007 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies Ongole Rep., by its Proprietor K. Venkanna ..Petitioner And 1. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:27926 OF 2007Dated:28.12.2007
Between:
M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agencies
Ongole
Rep., by its Proprietor
K. Venkanna
..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 Joint Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad and others.
..Respondents.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:27926 OF 2007
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking stay ofthe disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-2005 pending appealbefore ADC, Guntur by its order dated 13.11.2007 in CCT’s Ref.No.LV(4)/829/2007 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, forbear the 3[rd]respondent from taking coercive steps pending disposal of the appeal.The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by theassessment made by the 3[rd] respondent, the petitioner preferred anappeal along with the stay application before the 2[nd] respondent. But,the 2[nd] respondent dismissed the stay application. Challenging thesame, the petitioner filed stay petition before the 1[st] respondent. The1[st] respondent also dismissed the stay petition. Having aggrieved bythe same, the present writ petition has been filed 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 appeal as to the assessment is pending before the 2[nd] respondentand the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and thattaking advantage of the rejection of stay by the 1[st] respondent, the 3[rd]respondent is demanding the disputed tax and at this juncture, if the relief of stay is not entertained and if the disputed tax is recovered, thevery purpose of filing the appeal before the 2[nd] respondent would bedefeated.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the factthat the appeal is pending before the 2[nd] respondent, withoutexpressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit casewherein stay can be granted, subject to the certain conditions.
Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed taxpending disposal of the appeal before the 2[nd] respondent subject tothe condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax,within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear thatthe amount paid if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulatedsum.
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
Note:Issue C.C. by Thursday. (BO) Nn/Gurc.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:27926 OF 2007(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)