M/s.Bata India Ltd v. Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- B PRAKASH RAO, C Y SOMAYAJULU
Provisions considered
- Companies Act, 2013
- Constitution of India arts. 13, 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 265, 276(2)
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 to set-asode the impugned assessment proceedings No.1006/01 dt.18-4-2002 issued by the 1st respondent determining the payment of professional tax for 80 branches @ 2500/- totaling to Rs.2,00,000/- as well as the demand for payment of interest/penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- thereon totaling to Rs.3,00,000/- each for the yar 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 rs.18,00,000/- treating each branch of the petitioenr as a separate person under the explanation provided to section 2(J) of A.P.Tax on Professions, Trades, Calling and Employments Act, 1987 as well as explanation 1 to the 1st Schedule thereof as the same is violative of Art.13,14,19(1)(g), 265 and 276 (2) of Constitution of India and to declare the impugned proceedings as un-constiotutional and to struck down the exsplanation to totaling Section2(J) as well as the explanation I to the 1st Schedule therof and consequently hold that the petitiioner is liable to pay professional Tax @ Rs.2,5000/- per annum under item 19 of Schedule I of the ?Act irrespective of number of branches of offices it has in ht eStat of A.P.and to grant such other relief or the reliefs as the peittioner is found entitled to in Law by issuance oa Writ partiucularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order as the Hon'ble Court be deem and proper in the circumstance of the case or else the petitioner herein will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SPL GP FOR TAXES The Court made the following :
ORDER:
(Per The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the question involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered against the petitioner-assessee by a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Karnataka Bank Ltd., vs. State of A.P. and others [1] . Following the same, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- (B.Prakash Rao, J) 10th March, 2008 LUR -------------------------- (C.Y.Somayajulu, J) // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 Deputy Commerercial Officer cum Professional Tax Officer Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Commerercial Tax cum Professional Tax State of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Governemtn, Dept.of Revenue, O/o.Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4 Union of India Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Governement of India, Ministry of Law, Justice, Legislative Dept., New Delhi. 5 2CCs to 6 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR} [1] [2008] 12 VST 459 (SC)
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.