Chief Executive Officer, Full Additional Charge, Sri S.S. Prasad Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Full Additional Charge, Sri S.S. Prasad Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Nandyala. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Proddutur. 3 Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Kurnool. 4 K.C. Pullaiah, Managing Partner of KCP Builders, Contractor, H.No.3/308, YMR Colony, Proddatur, Cuddapah District, Andhra Pradesh. .....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 a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus holding that the action of the first respondent in issuing the garnishee notice under Section 17 of the APGST Act to the bankers of the petitioner Devasthanam seeking to recover a sum of Rs, 41,92,325/- and collecting a sum of Rs, 28,72,502/- from the petitioner Devasthanam towards the amounts relatable to the fourth respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction and accordingly direct the first respondent to refund the amount of Rs.28,72,502/- together with interest.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SKRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Special GP FOR TAX ES. Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following: . Oral order: (Per: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that unauthorisedly certain amounts were attached under Section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and finally recovered from the petitioner-Devasthanam. Counter was filed and during hearing on 14-10-2004, as prima facie we were not convinced that the respondents had any authority to attach and deduct the amounts, passed the following order in W.P.M.P.No.20463 of 2004 in W.P.No. 15728 of 2004: “We allow the petitioners to make representations before the concerned Commercial Tax Officers within a period of one week from today. The concerned C.T.O. shall decide the representations within a week thereafter and pass appropriate orders.
If the orders are not passed within the time stipulated by us, the respondents shall deposit the amount recovered from the petitioners after two weeks from today with the Registrar (Judl) of this Court. List after two weeks.” After this order, the respondents have passed the order dated 02-11-2004 allowing the refund of a sum of Rs.26,84,654-00. The petitioner submits that admittedly an amount of Rs.28,72,502-00 was collected from it without any legal justification or reason. Therefore, there was no justification for respondents to withhold the balance amount. We have gone through the order. We do not find any justification, as the 1st respondent has only stated in the order dated 02-11-2004 that he was under the bona fide impression that Mr. K.C. Pullaiah alone questioned the recovery before the Court. We do not know how this impression was created when the amounts were recovered from the petitioner without any justification in law.
Operative part
The amounts had to be refunded to the petitioner alone. Therefore, we hold that the petitioner is entitled for recovery of Rs. 28,72,502-00(Rs. Twenty eight lakhs seventy two thousand five hundred and two only) and also the interest, if permissible, under the relevant rules. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________ BILAL NAZKI, J _________________________ S. ANANDA REDDY, J Dt. 03-11-2004 Pvks/* To 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Nandyala. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Proddutur. 3 Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Kurnool.
4.2CCs to the Special Government Pleader for Taxes, A.P. High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 — s. 17.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 03 Nov 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.