Telangana High Court
WP/28210/2007 of M/s.Rasheed Cycle Agencies, Kurnool, represented by its Vs Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, on 28 December 2007
T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:28210 OF 2007 Dated:28.12.2007 Between: M/s. Rasheed Cycle Agencies, Kurnool, rep., by its Proprietor T. Abdul Rasheed. ..Petitioner And 1. Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, A.P. Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents.
Dated:28.12.2007
Between:
M/s. Rasheed Cycle Agencies,
Kurnool, rep., by its Proprietor
T. Abdul Rasheed.
..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. Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal,
A.P. Hyderabad and others.
..Respondents.
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking todeclare the action of the 1[st] respondent in rejecting the stayapplication vide proceedings dated 10.12.2007 in CCT’s Ref.No.LIII(3)/629/2007 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to grant stay ofcollection of disputed penalty for the assessment years 2002-2003 to2004-2005 pending disposal of the appeals pending before the 2[nd]respondent.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by theproceedings issued by the 3[rd] respondent levying penalty, appealshave been preferred before the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner hasalso filed stay applications. But the said applications were rejected. Hence, the petitioner filed revision applications before the 1[st]respondent. But, the 1[st] respondent also rejected the stayapplications. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitionhas 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 thatagainst the penalty proceedings issued by the 3[rd] respondent, appealsare pending before the 2[nd] respondent and at this stage, the 1[st]respondent as well as the 2[nd] respondent are not justified in rejectingthe stay applications. He further contended that the penaltyproceedings being quasi criminal in nature, if the relief of stay is notentertained, serious prejudice would be caused to the rights of the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the factthat the appeals are 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, but subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, there shall be stay of collection of disputed penaltypending disposal of the appeals before the 2[nd] respondent subject tothe condition of the petitioner depositing 1/4[th] of the disputed penaltyof each assessment year, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid if any, shall be givencredit to the above 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, 2007Nn/Gurc.
(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
28/12/2007