WP/26881/2006 of Smt. Duddu Bala Tripura Sundari Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II on 29 December 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SIX

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWARAND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.APPA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.26881 OF 2006

Between:

Smt.Duddu Bala Tripura Sundari.

AND

..... PETITIONER

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II,Samarangamchowk Circle,Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada,And others.

....RESPONDENTS

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICEJ.CHELAMESWARAND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICED.APPA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.26881 OF 2006

O R D E R(Per Sri Justice J.Chelameswar)

This writ petition is filed with a prayer as follows:

“… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order ordirection more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the notice dt.19-9-2006 in Form No.5under Section 27 of the Act No.II of the Revenue RecoveryAct, 1864, issued by the 1[st] respondent for realization ofthe alleged tax and penalty arrears relating to the 3[rd]respondent from the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary andwithout jurisdiction and set aside the same andconsequently declare that the petitioner who is a surety isnot liable to pay any arrears of tax or penalty relating to 3[rd]respondent after 1994-95 and pass …”

The third respondent is a registered dealer under the A.P. General SalesTax Act (for short ‘the Act’) carrying on the business in rice and is an assesseeon the rolls of the second respondent. For the purpose of registration as adealer under the Act, the third respondent filed an application dated 21.10.1994before the second respondent and as per the relevant rules under the Act, thethird respondent is required to provide a third party surety. The petitionertherefore provided the necessary surety. It appears that in the course ofconduct of business, the third respondent fell in arrears of tax due under theAct for the assessment year 2001-2002. Towards recovery of the said arrears of tax and penalty, the first respondent initiated proceedings under the RevenueRecovery Act by attaching the property of the petitioner, and hence, thepresent writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned Government Pleader.

It is settled law by this Court in a judgment reported in NEW KAMALBAR AND CAFÉ, HYDERABAD V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [42 APSTJ77 (A.P)] that the liability of the surety provided at the time of registration of afirm under the Act is limited only for a period of one year from the date offurnishing of the surety. Since the impugned action for recovery of the arrearsof tax and penalty due from the third respondent for the year other than theyear for which the petitioner provided the surety, the impugned proceedingsagainst the petitioner are clearly illegal, and therefore, the writ petition isrequired to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed as prayed for at theadmission stage itself.

-----------------------------------JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR

29[TH] DECEMBER, 2006PGS

-----------------------------

JUSTICE D.APPA RAO

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICEJ.CHELAMESWARAND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICED.APPA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.26881 OF 2006(Per Sri Justice J.Chelameswar)

29[TH] DECEMBER, 2006