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

M/S. Sbq Steels Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 February, 2026

APHC010599132014
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI               [3329]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

                              PRESENT

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 8775/2014

Between:

  1. M/S. SBQ STEELS LTD.,, ANKALAPATURU VILLAGE, CHILLAKURU
     MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT -524 412. REP. BY ITS
     SENIOR MANAGER, SRI. MUNNALURI RAMBABU

                                                     ...PETITIONER

                                 AND

  1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY TO GOVT AND COMMISSIONER FOR INDUSTRIAL
     PROMOTION DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES.AND COMMERCE,
     SECRETARIAT ROAD, HYDERABAD. REP. BY PRINCIPLE
     SECRETARY,

  2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIA, OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
     INDUSTRIES, CHIRAG ALI LANE, ABIDS, HYDERABAD.

  3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, OFFICER
     OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES, CHIRAG ALI LANE,
     ABIDS, HYDERABAD.

  4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER,
     NELLORE.

  5. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, C.T.
     COMPLEX, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500 001
    6. DEPUTY    COMMISSIONER,     DNO:   15/505, IST   FLOOR,
      C.T.COMPLEX, R.R. STREET,NELLORE,NELLORE DISTRICT-524001

                                                           ...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 pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the
nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 and
2 in not reimbursing 50% sales tax claimed by the petitioner company, as
illegal, unjustified and contrary to the G.0 No. 178 dated 21-06-2005 as
subsequently modified by G.O.Ms. No. 163 dated 25-06-2007 as well as
G.O.Ms. Mo. 402 dated 06-07-2007 and G.O.Ms. 62 dated 06-07-2011
respectively issued by the 1st respondent under LIPS 2005-10, besides being
in violation of petitioner's rights guaranteed under Art. 14 and 19(1) (g) of
Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2
to'reimburse the 50% sales tax forthwith

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 10958 OF 2014

      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
restrain the respondents 5 and 6 not to collect the sales tax and AP VAT from
the petitioner company till the respondents 1 & 2 reimburse the 50% sales tax
for the Financial Years 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 to the tune of
Rs.7,29,05,698/- pending disposal of the above writ petition

IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 10959 OF 2014

      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
direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reimburse the 50% sale tax for the years
2009-10 to 2012-13 to the tune of Rs. 7,29,05,698/- (Rupee Seven twenty
nine lakhs five thousand six hundred ninety eighty only) pending disposal of
the above writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE

Counsel for the Respondent(S):
   1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

  2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE

The Court made the following:
   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                      WRIT PETITION NO:8775 OF 2014


  ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Sri N.Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pending writ petition, the petitioner company itself was dissolved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-II, Chennai vide its order dated 11.02.2022, after completion of liquidation proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

3. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

__________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 04.02.2026 BSP 91 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.8775 of 2014 04.02.2026 BSP