Writ Petition No. 22798 of 2008 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GODA RAGHURAM, P V SANJAY KUMAR
Outcome
Disposed of
disputed tax even before the appeal is disposed of on merits
Provisions considered
Judgment
M/s. J.P. Printers Rep. by its Mngng. Partner Mr. Mathews Pater F.No.401, Nilgiri Block, Aditya Enclava, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl. Commissioner (CT) (LEGAL), O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Dy. Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned order dated 02-09-2008, issued by the first respondent as it is contrary to the provisions of law and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.J.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.22798 OF 2008
O R D E R (Per Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.09.2008 of the first respondent rejecting the revision of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 24.03.2008 passed by the third respondent under the AP VAT Act, 2005 for the assessment year 2006-07 determining the tax liability at Rs.81,075/-, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent along with an application for stay of collection of the disputed tax. By the order dated 05.07.2008 the appellate authority-second respondent rejected the application for stay. Thereagainst the petitioner preferred a revision to the first respondent. By the order (impugned), dated
Operative part
02.09.2008 the revision was rejected. Since the substantive appeal of the petitioner against the assessment order is pending before the second respondent, it is just and proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner should be relieved from the obligation to pay the entire disputed tax even before the appeal is disposed of on merits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Koundinya, learned Government Pleader for respondents. On the aforesaid analysis the orders of the first respondent dated 02.09.2008 and of the second respondent dated 05.07.2008 are set aside. There shall be a stay of collection of tax as determined by the third respondent in the final assessment order dated 24.03.2008, on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the tax as assessed by the third respondent, before the third respondent within a period of six weeks from today after giving credit to the amount of tax, if any, paid. In default of such deposit by the petitioner as directed above, the stay granted herein shall stand dissolved. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. No costs. ------------------------------ GODA RAGHURAM,J -------------------------------- P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008 PGS/VGSR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.22798 OF 2008 (Per Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) 25th NOVEMBER, 2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: disputed tax even before the appeal is disposed of on merits
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; AP VAT Act, 2005.
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.