Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO : 16601 of 2004 Between: M/s. Prasad Media Corporation Ltd., NTR Gardens, Hyderabad, Represented by its General Manager (Operations) Ralph Sunil. AND 1 Commercial Tax officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 Additional Commissioner (CT) (L), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
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 a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.10,46,772/- for the year 2003-04 and 1,33,827/- for the year 2004-05 pursuant to the stay rejection orders of the second respondent dated 10-08- 2004 pending disposal of the appeals before the second respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner :Mr.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following :
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) Orders passed on 10-08-2004 by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, in Appeals No.A/115/04-05 and A/116/04-05 refusing to stay the collection of disputed tax, a copy of which is stated to have been served upon the petitioner on 13-09-2004, are under challenge in this writ petition. At the very outset, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes raised the preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition in view of the remedy of revision to the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner under Section 19 (2-B) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. In view of the alternative, efficacious and adequate statutory remedy to challenge the impugned orders in revision within thirty days under the said Act, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage, but relegate the petitioner to the remedy of revision. However, as the orders under challenge were received by the petitioner on 13-09-2004 and on the same day a notice was also issued requiring depositing of the amount forthwith failing which coercive steps will taken, we direct stay of recovery of the disputed tax for the period till the revision is taken up for hearing and appropriate orders passed thereupon by the concerned authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ________________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, C.J. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J 15-09-2004 Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. (b/o) To 1 Commercial Tax officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 Additional Commissioner (CT) (L), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 2CCs to Govt. Pleader for Comml. Taxes, High court buildings, Hyderabad.
2CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 15 Sep 2004. The bench was C V RAMULU.
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.