M/s STADS Limited v. O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
writ petition is disposed of at this stage
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s STADS Limited, rep.by N.Seshadri, Manager (Administration) Plot No.201, First Floor, 3-6-181/1, Road No.17, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29 having its Registered Office at No.2, Kastur Rangan Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 18 ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal (FAC) O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Hyderabad 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad 4 The ICICI Bank Limited, rep.by Branch Manager, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 5 The UTI Bank, rep.by Branch Manager, No.5, Thyagaraja road, T.Nagar, Chennai .....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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) declaring the order of the Respondent No.1 in Proc. No.CCT's Ref. No.LIII(1)/1026/2004, dated 28-09-2004 in Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner against the orders of the Respondent NO.2 dated 10-08-2004 and 18-08- 2004 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Provisions of A.P. General Sales Tax Act and consequently set aside the same; ii) direct the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps pending appeals before the Respondent No.2 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RAJENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Spl. GP FOR TAXES The Court at the admission stage made the following : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BILAL NAZKI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ANANDA REDDY W.P.NO. 17813 OF 2004
ORDER:
Operative part
(Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki) Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at this stage. The petitioner had filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent challenging the order passed by 2nd respondent. Along with the revision petition, he also filed an application for stay pending the revision petition. The 2nd respondent rejected the stay application. Hence this writ petition. It is stated that the total liability of the tax is Rs.16,75,934/- and out of this, an amount of Rs.4,32,479/- has already been paid. In the interest of justice, we direct that there shall be stay including garnishee order subject to payment of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) within a period of six weeks. The stay shall be unconditional for a period of six weeks and it shall continue if the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is paid during this period. If the petitioner to deposit the amount, the stay shall stand vacated automatically. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______ Dt. 4.10.2004 KR NB: Registry to furnish CC of order within three days. /BO/ BN J. _______ SAR J. ASST. REGISTRAR To 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal (FAC) O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Hyderabad 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad
2 CCs to Spl. G.P. for Commercial Tax, High Court Buildings, Hyd. (out)
2CD copies
One CC to Mr. A. Sudershan Reddy, Advocate General, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (out)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is disposed of at this stage
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 226; Provisions of A.P. General Sales Tax Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 04 Oct 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.