Wp/12011/2009 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward
High Court
23 Jun 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/12011/2009 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward
Date of order
23 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/12011/2009 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Decision: The petition stands disposed of aswithdrawn with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEand
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO : 12011 of 2009
Between:
The Agricultural Market Committee Narasapuram, Rep. by itsSecretary West Godavari District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Aayakar Bhavan, Palakol, West Godavari District. West Godavari District.
2 The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Godavari District.
3 The Sub Treasury Officer Narasapuram, West Godavari
District.
4 State Bank of India, Narasapuram Branch, Narasapuram, West Godavari District. Godavari District.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ ordirection or order holding that the action of the 1st respondent inissuing notice dt. 09-06-2009 U/s 226 ( 3 ) of I.T.Act to the 4threspondent as illegal and arbitrary and without authority of law andcontrary to general principles applicable to garnishee proceedings andconsequently direct the 1st respondent to revoke and withdraw thenotice dt.09-06-2009.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FORAGRL.MRKT.COMTTS)
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.S.R.ASHOK
Counsel for Respondent No.3: Government Pleader for Financeand Planning
The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ)
The learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission towithdraw the petition so as to enable the petitioner to make anapplication for interim stay before the appropriate authority.
Permission is granted. The petition stands disposed of aswithdrawn with no order as to costs.
ANIL R. DAVE, CJ
23[rd] June, 2009ksks
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.