Hyderabad v. Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Between: M/s Sri Siddivinayaka Mahalaxmi Glass Works, Rep by its Proprietor, Sri Aakanti Mahesh, S/o. late A.Sudershan, R/o. Goshamahal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Mehdipatnam Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), Hyderabad. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing demand notice dt. 23.06.2008 during pendency of the Appeal before the 3rd Respondent for correction of disputed taxes for the period 2007-2008 upto Nov.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P.VAT Act, 2005 and set aside the same, consequently direct the 1st respondent not to collect the disputed taxes of Rs.7,85,795/- during pendency of the Appeal before the 3rd respondent and grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KUNUKUDURGAPRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO. 14020 OF 2008
ORDER:
(Per Smt. T. Meena Kumari, J) The writ petition is filed challenging the demand notice dt. 23.06.2008 issued by the 1st respondent demanding the petitioner to pay arrears of tax of Rs.15,71,590/- under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (APVAT Act). Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was assessed to tax for the period of 2007-2008 under the provisions of APVAT Act, 2005. The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order and sought stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.7,85,795 during pendency of the appeal. The 3rd respondent rejected the stay application by order dated 15.5.2008. We are of the opinion that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted. Accordingly we stay the impugned demand notice subject to deposit of half of the disputed tax by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, pending appeal before the appellate authority. Any amount paid earlier shall be given credit to. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Dt.2.7.2008 KR // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Mehdipatnam Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), Hyderabad. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 4. 2 CCs to GP for Commercial Taxes 5. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}
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.