Bangalore-560001 v. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Jul 2004
- Bench
- BILAL NAZKI, P S NARAYANA
Outcome
Dismissed
Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s. Reckitt Piramal Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 100, Centre Point, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012 and its Regional Office at Mahalaxmi Chambers, 29, M.G.road, Bangalore-560001, represented by Mr.C.K.Ganesan, Accountant. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of CT Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada .....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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 4-4-2001 passed by Respondent No.1 directing payment of 50% of the disputed taxes within one month from the date of the order as arbitrary, unjust contrary to principles of natural justice. For the Petitioner:MS.SHIREEN SETHNA BARIA, Advocate. For the Respondents : The SPL Government Pleader FOR TAXES The Court Made the Following :
ORDER :
Operative part
(Per Sri Bilal Nazki, J). Counsel for petitioner submits that the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as ‘infructuous’. No costs. ASST.REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ajr. To 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada. 3 Two C.Cs. to the Special Government Pleader for Taxes, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T). 4 Two C.D. copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Jul 2004. The bench was BILAL NAZKI, P S NARAYANA.
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.