Vinod Goel v. Junction, Visakhapatnam
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s. You One Manaria (JV) Visakhapatnam rep by Managing Director, Mr. Vinod Goel S/o S.R. Goel, ... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Rajam Srikakulam District 2 The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India Enclave, 2-8, Old Diary Firm, Hanumantharala Junction, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that refusal of the Commercial Tax Officer, Rajam in Letter Rc. No. 265/2004 B8 dated 22-06-2004 addressed to the petitioner to furnish the information of service of assessment orders or notices or the due dates for payment of taxes by the suppliers in respect of whom the petitioner was served with the copies of the Notices under Section-17 of the Act on 04-06-2004 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, opposed to the principles of natural justice as also established rules of law by holding that the provisions of Section-17 are not mechanic routine or automatic but are conditional and the power conferred on the authorities to invoke provisions of Section-17 of the APGST Act 1957 is not absolute and accordingly direct the first respondent to furnish the information as sought for by the petitioner company in its letter dated 17-06-2004 for taking necessary action pursuant to the Garnishee Notices or alternately to declare the garnishee notices dt 04-06-2004 with no information as to date of assessment order, service with demand notices and due dates, as illegal, improper unjust and contrary to the law laid down in 29 APSTJ 106, 32 APSTJ 51 and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.K.RAJI REDDY & SPL.STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
(Per Sri Bilal Nazki , J) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage. The Commercial Tax Officer, Rajam, issued garnishee notice under Section 17 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”) to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he retained the amount on behalf of the third parties, the garnishee notice has not been issued in accordance with law. Therefore, even if he pays the amount in response to the notice under Section 17 of the Act, the third party may ultimately seek recovery of money from the petitioner. We fail to understand how is the petitioner concerned if admittedly money of third party is with the petitioner. If he complies with Section 17 notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Rajam, he would be doing a legal act and cannot be held responsible for disbursement of any amount on behalf of the third party retained by him under Section 17 of the Act. If the third party has any grievance, he has his own remedies available. But, we do not think that the petitioner can retain the amount in the light of the notice on the ground that the third party has some remedy available. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 11th October, 2004. ________________ (BILAL NAZKI, J) ___________________ (S.ANANDA REDDY, J) pan/kvni To 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Rajam Srikakulam District 2 The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Enclave, 2-8, Old Diary Firm, Hanumantharala Junction, Visakhapatnam 3 Two C.D.copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; APGST Act, 1957; Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 — s. 17.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 11 Oct 2004. The bench was BILAL NAZKI, S ANANDA REDDY.
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.