Telangana High Court
WP/27498/2007 of M/s.Meci Tronics, D.No.5-9-241/A/AANDB,Abids, Hyderabad Vs The Commercial TAx officer, Nampally circle on 26 December 2007
T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:27498 OF 2007 Dated:26.12.2007 Between: M/s Meco Tronics, D.No.5-9-241/ A / A &B, Abids, Hyderabad, Rep., by its Proprietor Aiyaz M. Ebrahim ..Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Nampally Circle, Hyderabad 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.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
&
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:27498 OF 2007Dated:26.12.2007
Between:M/s Meco Tronics,D.No.5-9-241/A/A&B,Abids, Hyderabad,Rep., by its ProprietorAiyaz M. Ebrahim
..Petitioner
AndThe Commercial Tax Officer,Nampally Circle,Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:27498 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 1[st] respondent in rejecting the stayapplication vide proceedings dated 26.7.2007 in Appeal No.A/69/07-08, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to grant stay of recoveryof the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-2004 pendingdisposal of the appeal before the 2[nd] respondent.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by theassessment order passed by the 1[st] respondent, an appeal has beenfiled before the 2[nd] respondent. Along with the said appeal, anapplication for stay was also filed. But the said application wasrejected. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition hasbeen preferred.
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 order is pending before the tribunaland the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and atthis juncture, if the relief of stay is not entertained and if the recovery iseffected, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated.
In view of the submission that 12.5% of the disputed tax has already been paid and in view of the fact that an appeal is pendingbefore the 2[nd] respondent as to the assessment of tax, 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 recovery of the disputed taxpending disposal of the appeal before the 2[nd] respondent, on conditionof the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period ofsix weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid ifany, shall be given credit 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: 26[th] December, 2007Note:Issue C.C. by Monday. (BO) Nn.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:27498 OF 2007
(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
26/12/2007