M/s. Sri Anitha Traders & Anr. v. Chittoor District & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s. Sri Anitha Traders & another. …Petitioners
AND Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, No. II (Intelligence), Tirupati, Chittoor District & another. …Respondents
::
ORDER ::
Operative part
Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Raji Reddy, Special Government Pleader for Taxes. 22nd FEBRUARY 2006 Per G.S.Singhvi, C.J. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing two notices dated 13-2-2006 issued by Assistant Commercial Tax Officer-II, Intelligence, Tirupati under Section 43 of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 58 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and Section 58 read with Section 61 (1)(b) of the Act respectively. The petitioners have averred that immediately after receipt of the impugned notices, application dated 15-2-2006 was made to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer concerned for release of the goods and the vehicle but the same has not been decided despite the fact that they are prepared to pay tax on the value specified in the impugned notices. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, it is not necessary to adjudicate on the legality of the impugned notices because we feel that ends of justice would be met by directing Assistant Commercial Officer-II, Intelligence, Tirupati, to consider the application made by the petitioners for release of the vehicle and decide the same within 24 hours from today. If the petitioners reiterate their undertaking to pay the tax due, then there should be no impediment in the release of the vehicle. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. While disposing of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, we make it clear that the aforementioned direction shall not absolve the petitioners of any other liability, which they may have incurred on account of violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. G.S. SINGHVI, C.J. G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 22nd February, 2006. ARS/vtv Note: Court Officer is directed to give attested copy of the order to the counsel. (BO)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 — s. 43.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Feb 2006. The bench was G BHAVANI PRASAD, C G BHAVANI PRASAD.
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.