M/s. Agarwal Plywood Industries, Re-survey v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Krishnalanka
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
M/s. Agarwal Plywood Industries, Re-survey No.188/A, Surampalli, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, represented by its Proprietor, Mrs. Sujata Agarwal, W/o.Sri Manohar Agarwal, aged about 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.27-44-1/b, Pathibandlavari Veedhi, Governerpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District .. Petitioner
And The Commercial Tax Officer, Krishnalanka Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District and another .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28418 OF 2011
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) The petitioner - firm is an assessee under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act,
1956. The first respondent herein issued notice dated 25.08.2011 requesting the petitioner to pay the tax deferment amount availed during the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. This notice is assailed in the writ petition, as illegal and arbitrary. When the matter is called today, Sri N.Gangadhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a copy of the notice bearing No.TIN.No.28370197674, dated 20.10.2011 (which is made part of the record), whereby and whereunder the first respondent cancelled the earlier notice dated 25.08.2011, which is impugned in the writ petition. In that view of the matter, the counsel does not press the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _____________________
(SANJAY KUMAR, J)
24.10.2011 KH
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Oct 2011. The bench was V V S RAO, SANJAY KUMAR.
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.