M/S.Parle Products Pvt Ltd vs The Asst Commissioner on 21 October, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S.Parle Products Pvt Ltd vs The Asst Commissioner on 21 October, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 215* DAY OF OCTOBER 2010  
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOKB. .HINC§?i.IVC3I'E"I'<TE'IC' 

wRIT PETITION NOS.33441-488 as 2c;'IDL.{T-'Res)    

BETVVEEN:

I. M/S.PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD
15, K M STONE, TUMKUR ROAD
N H -4, BANGALORE--56OOT7._3"'«.

REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. M'ANAe.:;_ER 
SRI RAKESH JOSHI  V  
AGED ABOUT 34:TEA_RfS _ :_ 
S/O SRI JASwAN'--TJO;SH_I ~. j«_ _

V V H  PETITIONER

(By Sri. MALHARA 'RAO7"EOR_ SRI'S:'PA_RTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND: A %  V' 
i. THE ASST CONTMISSIO.svER.

 OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (HQS)

' 'SRINIVASA-L.COL.MPLEX  IIIII 

  SESHADRIP!.JF!.AzM.,V
'5AROTALO'RIE4E.6DI_I2--Q

  THE .COMMISS'I_ON'EVR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

VANIITA THERIGE KARYALAYA
'GANDHINAGAR

~ :;-j~.__I3ANeALORE;5S0oo9

".RESPONDENTS

" {;3,1.._'S:RI Ré.M.SHIvAYOGISwAMY, HCGP) _ "THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND "227"'OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE 1ST RESPONDENT FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER IN THE MATTER OF ix} RECOVERY OF THE IMPUGNED DEMAND IN PURSUANCE OF THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.10.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR oRoERsTH_4IsV_j'a_A*:_, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

QRDEE Sri i<.M.Shivayogiswamy, the :v'JleOarned?._ Government Pleader is directed. to notice_:"fo'rV'th'eiEp respondents.

2. Sri Malhara Rao, the':iearned"'coti:4nspei-for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the assessmiejnt.--o.rd'eIi's,'.'.~the petitioner preferred Appeai Nos;'1.€3]"75 itog159214,/6951?1~0._...Tbefore the Joint Commissioneij of _ OECommEercia.l:O_""Taxes. In the said appeal proceedings, thei.._petitioner='de:p'o--sgi'ted about 50% of the amounts demanded; in cresppectlof thepibalance amounts, it executed bank gi.iaraﬁnteeV.."" .HieuR:'fiirtlj_er submits that the }oint Commissioner of Comm'erc'i.a_Epfia${esOV_ had.-1'indeed granted an interim order of stay. Op'~vi.'iA5i'nal_iy said' appeals came to be dismissed by the Joint E"Co'mrn'i'ssioner'=--of Commercial Taxes by his order, dated On the receipt of the order copy, the petitioner has fiiipeidthepfurther appeais -- S.T.A.Nos.2134~2180/2010 before the ,s,.i.._:O'*i§ar'n'ataka Appeliate Tribunal ('K.A.T.' for short). In the said §§iri.

appeal proceedings, the petitioner has also made an i.A.__ for stay. However, even before the K.A.T. could pass the or.dwe.rfs.4l_o»nv the petitioner's said application, the respondents resorted to the recovery proceedings by....the issiianice. demand notice and for encashing the ban:'i<Agu_arant'ee."~

3. Sri K.MShivayogiswamy,'"'t:h'e le.a'med"~ Court Government Pleader appeariii::;g~~..for _*:'he_ brnits that the matter could be disposed the K.A.T. to dispose of the also the main matter itself as He further submits that the mattverwlissr for the admission and for consideration' of they

4. I,t_i{is not in' rclispute that the petitioner has deposited ab'o1_:_t.'S{.«i.F>ZVo ol:f~Altlie"~ar_nounts in dispute and has also given the bankit§uVa.ra«ntee'_j~i.n'respect of the remaining amounts. In my V1:"_con--sidere"d' vi-evv;"'V'the ends of justice would be met by my 4: the V'K.A.T. to dispose of the petitioner's LA. for stay as V"rvfxexpedlitiously as possible.

£33;

5. To safeguard the interest of the petitioner during the period of interregnum i.e. between today and the-«_tia'te:"'«o4f dispose! of the LA. for stay, I direct the respon.d'énts:éT«:"dot resort to any coercive measures until the..di.s4posa.E"o'4f in stay.

6. This petition is accordingif..o'rderedV;'~.. as to COStS.

bvr

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court