M/s. Tirumalagiri Traders, Gudivada, Krishna District v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
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 in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proviso to Section-19 of APGST Act, 1957 restricting power of the Appellate Authority to condone delay of 30 days introduced in 1997 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional violating Articles-245 and 258 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the tax under Section-5A levied by the respondent namely commercial Tax Officer, Gudivada in Assessment for 2001-2002 dt, 18.01.2002 on subsequent sales of Soya Been de-oiled cake, poultry feed, being contrary to law in G.O.Ms.No.911 Revenue Dt. 31.12.1999 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 Counsel for the Respondent: MR. K.RAJI REDDY, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes The Court at the admission stage made the following
ORDER:
(Per BRSR,J) It is brought to our notice by the learned Special Standing Counsel for the department that this Court in its decision reported in REKHA TIMBER DEPOT, ONGOLE AND OTHERS v. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AND OTHERS upheld the constitutional validity of proviso to Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, whereunder, the power of the appellate authority to condone the delay has been restricted to only thirty (30) days. The same issue cannot be permitted to be raised once again. Such a course is impermissible in law. The writ petition fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (B. Sudershan Reddy,J) _______________________ Date:29th November, 2004. (T.Ch.Surya Rao, J) kvni/ks To 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District 2 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; APGST Act, 1957; Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 — s. 19.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Nov 2004. The bench was B SUDERSHAN REDDY, T SURYA RAO.
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.