Telangana High Court
WP/28023/2007 of M/s. Ganesh Constructions rep by its Managing Partner, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, on 28 December 2007
T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:28023 OF 2007 Dated:28.12.2007 Between: M/s. Ganesh Constructions, rep., By its Managing Partner D. Narsing Rao, S/o D. Balaji. ..Petitioner And 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Madhapur Circle, Hyderabad and another.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:28023 OF 2007
Dated:28.12.2007
Between:
M/s. Ganesh Constructions, rep.,
By its Managing Partner D. NarsingRao, S/o D. Balaji.
..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 Commercial Tax Officer, Madhapur Circle, Hyderabad and another.
..Respondents.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI&HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:28023 OF 2007
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking todeclare the attachment notice issued by the 1[st] respondent dated11.12.2007 for collection of the disputed taxes for the assessment year2003-2004 and 2004-2005, pending disposal of the appeal and stayapplication before the 2[nd] respondent, as illegal and arbitrary andconsequently, to direct the 1[st] respondent not to collect the disputedtax pending disposal of the appeal before the 2[nd] respondent.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by theassessment order, an appeal has been preferred before the 2[nd]respondent. Along with the appeal, an application for stay of collectionof the disputed tax has also been moved before the 2[nd] respondentand the same is pending consideration. While so, the 1[st] respondenthas issued the impugned notice. Having aggrieved by the same, thepresent writ petition has 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 thatthe appeal and the stay application are pending as to the assessmentbefore the 2[nd] respondent and at this stage, the issuance of the noticeimpugned is unjustified and in these circumstances, if the relief of stayis not entertained and if the disputed tax is recovered, the very purposeof filing the appeal before the 2[nd] respondent would be defeated.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the factthat the appeal is pending before the 2[nd] respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit casewherein stay can be granted.
Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed taxand attachment notice, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2[nd]respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% ofthe disputed tax of each assessment year, within a period of six weeksfrom today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid if any, shallbe 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: 28[th] December, 2007
Nn/Gurc.
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
&
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No:28023 OF 2007(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari)
28/12/2007