Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- APGST Act, 1957
Judgment
Cause title
M/s Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Tarakaturu, Gudur Mandal, Krishna District rep.by its Proprietor Y.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Y.Ramachandrayya, aged 47 years ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Commercial Tax officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District .....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing Urgent Demand Notice dated 08-03-2004 under the provisions of the APGST Act, 1957 without implementing of the Orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.950, 951 and 952 dated 10-09-2003 and without recasting or refixing the taxable turnovers and determining the liability to tax thereon for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 as also the earlier assessment orders by implementing the orders as illegal, arbitrary and unfair, improper and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the second respondent herein to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 22-06-2004 by appropriate proceedings determining the modified turnover liable to tax in terms of after considering or implementing the Government Orders, mentioned supra and not to initiate coercive steps for recovery of any arrears pending disposal of the Writ petition and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES. The Court at the stage of admission made the following :
ORDER :
(Per Sri Bilal Nazki, J). Heard learned Counsel for the parties. During the course of hearing, it came to our notice that a representation of the petitioner is pending with the respondents. Since the representation is pending, we deem it appropriate not to entertain this Writ Petition at this stage and direct the authorities concerned to dispose of the representation after hearing the petitioner as early as possible. Till the representation is decided, coercive steps may not be taken against the petitioner. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 28th July, 2004. ajr. ________________ (BILAL NAZKI, J) ____________________ (S.ANANDA REDDY, J) To 1 The Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Commercial Tax officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District 3 Two C.Cs. to the G.P. for Commercial Taxes, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T.) 4 Two C.D. copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; APGST Act, 1957.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 28 Jul 2004. The bench was BILAL NAZKI, S ANANDA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.