Telangana High Court
WP/26678/2006 of M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) 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. 26678 of 2006 Between:- M/s. Panasonic
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. 26678 of 2006
Between:-
M/s. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.,
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 01-07-2006
passed by the 1[st]respondent in Appeal No.NilA.R.Sl.No.P/43/2006 for the assessment year 2002-03under the CST Act as illegal and unjustified in the facts andcircumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner is a private limited company registeredunder the Companies Act carrying on the business of sellingelectronic goods and registered dealer on the rolls of the 2[nd]respondent-The Commercial Tax Officer, Abids Circle,Hyderabad. The liability of the petitioner for tax under the CentralSales Tax Act (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2002-03 came to be determined by the 2[nd] respondent by his orderdated 18-01-2006. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, thepetitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 1[st] respondent-The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division,Nampally, Hyderabad. The 1[st] respondent rejected the appeal onthe ground that the petitioner had not deposited the 12½% of thedisputed tax as required under Section 19 (1) of the Act. Hence,the present writ 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 on10-11-2006.
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