Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S. Maharaja Soaps Industry Pvt. Ltd., ... vs 1.The Deputy Commissioner (St) Ltu ... on 12 September, 2017
Author: Anis
Bench: Anis
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS, J. WRIT PETITION No.30800 of 2017 12-09-2017 m/S. Maharaja Soaps Industry Pvt. Ltd., 10/2/292/15, KVS Complex, Dasappa Road, Raidurg, Anantpur, Anantapuramu District, A. 1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) LTU (formerly known as Assistant commissioner (CT) LTU) Anantapuramu, P.A.R. Heights, 2nd Flo Nikhil Apartments, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, A.P 3.The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, D.No.5-59, R.K. Sprint Valley Apartments, Bandar Road, Edupugallu Village, Kankipa 4.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Secretary to the Government, Revenue (C.T) Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. Narendra Chetty Counsel for Respondents: G.P. for C.T <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN And HONBLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS, J. WRIT PETITION No.30800 of 2017 ORDER:
(Per VRS,J) The petitioner, who suffered an order of assessment, filed a statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. Pending the appeal, the petitioner moved a stay petition, but the same was rejected.
2. As against the rejection of stay petition, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who is the 3rd respondent herein. The Additional Commissioner seems to have heard the revision on 10.04.2017, but has not passed any order. As a consequence, the assessing officer has issued a garnishee notice to the Bank, who is the 5th respondent, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition.
3. Heard Mr. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the limited scope of the dispute, we directed Mr. S. Suri Babu, learned Special Standing Counsel to take notice for the respondents.
4. It appears that this Court has already taken a view in Katuri Medical College & Hospital v. Commercial Tax Officer that coercive steps cannot be taken when stay petitions are pending disposal. In this case, the stay petition was rejected way back on 17.03.2017 and the revision as against the same is pending for the past six months. The Additional Commissioner, who is the revisional authority, has already heard the revision way back in April, 2017, but has not passed any order.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the rejection of stay passed on 17.03.2017. There shall be an interim stay of recovery, pending disposal of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner.
6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
____________ ANIS, J.
12th September, 2017