Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P.Ravi Kumar vs Govt Of Ap By C T Dept Chittoor District 2 ... on 19 January, 2026

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

 APHC010442622007
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                           [3529]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

               THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

                      WRIT PETITION NO: 28131/2007

Between:

   1. P.RAVI KUMAR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, S/O OF LATE P.CHANDRA
      SEKHAR REDDY, BUSINESS R/O DOOR NO.13-6-600/44/E2,
      PEDDAKAPU LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

                                                                ...PETITIONER

                                     AND

   1. GOVT OF AP BY C T DEPT CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2 OTHERS,
      DEPARTMENT, DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, OFFICE OF
      THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR
      DISTRICT.

   2. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERII, OFFICE OF THE
      COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TIRUPATI-I CIRCLE, CHITTOOR
      DISTRICT.

   3. SIDHARDA MARKETING DOOR NO 169 TK STREET, TIRUPATHI,
      CHITTOOR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
      DIRECTOR, M.SAI KUMAR, S/O M.RAMALINGESWARA RAO.

                                                          ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.A3/1542/2001 dated 29-08-2007 and 24-10-2007 as illegal, arbitrary 2 and one without jurisdiction and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 36766 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents issued in Rc.No.A3/1542/2001 dated 29-08-2007 and 24-10- 2007 pending disposal of the WP and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. O MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3 The Court made the following order:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

2. The 3rd respondent had registered itself under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the APGST Act"). The petitioner, in compliance with Section 12(7) of the APGST Act read with Rule 28(8) of the APGST Rules had furnished a security to the respondents 1 and 2 on 15.09.1993 on an estimated turnover of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, notices were issued by the 1st respondent stating that the 3rd respondent had fallen arrears for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2002-2003 and that the petitioner would have to make payment of the arrears which were not paid by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notice, dated 28.09.2007 and the subsequent proceedings, dated 24.10.2007 which was the final notice issued to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,73,595/-, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.

3. A Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by judgment, dated 27.01.2006 in W.P.No.21526 of 1996 and batch, had held that the sureties furnished under Section 12(7) r/w Rule 28(8) would be a surety only for the arrears arising out of the first year after the dealer has been registered. The Division Bench, in coming to this conclusion, had followed the 4 earlier judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.17017 of 2002.

4. In the circumstances and following the aforesaid judgments, the present Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.A3/1542/2001, dated 29.08.2007 and 24.10.2007. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 19.01.2026 KA 5 120 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 28131/2007 Date: 19.01.2026 KA