Telangana High Court
WP/26677/2006 of M/s.Range,Bank street, Hyderabad, rep.by its Manager Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad on 27 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO W.P.No. 26677 of 2006 Between:- M/s. Range, Bank
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SIX
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARand THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO
W.P.No. 26677 of 2006
Between:-
M/s. Range, Bank Street,
Hyderabad.
..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 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT),Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad and another.Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad and another.
..Respondents
ORDER (Per JC,J) :
This writ petition is filed with a prayer as follows:
“To declare the impugned order dated 25-07-2006passed by the 1[st]respondent in Appeal No.NilG.I.No.126/06 for the assessment year 2002-03 under theCST Act as illegal and unjustified in the facts andcircumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern and registereddealer on the rolls of the 2[nd] respondent-The Commercial TaxOfficer, Abids Circle, Hyderabad, engaged in the business ofexport of granites and sales chemicals. The liability of thepetitioner for tax under the Central Sales Tax Act (for short ‘theAct’) for the assessment year 2002-03 came to be determined bythe 2[nd] respondent by his order dated 02-03-2006. Aggrieved bythe said assessment order, the petitioner carried the matter inappeal before the 1[st]respondent-The Appellate DeputyCommissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Nampally,Hyderabad. The 1[st] respondent rejected the appeal on the groundthat the petitioner had not deposited the 12½% of the disputed taxas required under Section 19 (1) of the Act. Hence, the presentwrit petition.
3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition that subsequent to the rejection of the appeal, thepetitioner has, in fact, deposited the above-mentioned amount on13-09-2006.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.
5. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that thematter can be disposed of at this stage directing the 1[st]respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits anddispose of the same in accordance with law.
6. With the aforementioned direction, the Writ Petition isdisposed of. No costs.
______________________
J.CHELAMESWAR,J
______________________
December 27, 2006 D.APPA RAO,J
KVR