Wp/12361/2009 Of Somagani Nageshwar Rao v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENTTHE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVEAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12361 of 2009 Between: 1 Somagani Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, R/o. H.No.3-5-131, Jammigadda Locality Suryapet, NalgondaDistrict. 2 Somagani Laxmaiah, S/o. Pitchaiah, R/o. H.No.3-5-131/A, Jammigadda Locality Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 Daka Srinivas Naidu, S/o. Narayana, R/o.H.No.3-5-131/a/I Jammigadda Locality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Hyderabad. 3 M/s Peeshonu Marketing Private Limited, Vijaya Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Chief Manager Director Theppali Saidulu, S/o. Bixam. 4 The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Suryapet Branch, Suryapet, Naglonda, Rep. by its Manager. Suryapet, Naglonda, Rep. by its Manager. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, moreparticularly one in he nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the actionof the Respondent No.4 in returning the cheques issued by the 3rdrespondent herein to the petitioners herein under the pretext offreezing of the accounts pertaining to the 3rd respondent basing on theorders of the 2nd respondent 6-3-2009 in F.No.28IB/DCIT/2008-09, asbeing illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondentNo.4 herein to honour the cheques presented by the petitioners,and togrant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR. S.R. ASHOK, (STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT)Counsel for Respondent No.3: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following :ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) The petitioners have been aggrieved by an order dt.6.3.2009passed by respondent No.2 whereby the bank accounts of respondentNo.3 have been attached. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted thatrespondent No.3 had given certain cheques in favour of the petitionersand because of the attachment of the bank accounts of respondentNo.3, the petitioners are unable to get the cheques encashed. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Standing Counsel appearing forrespondent Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that the bank accounts ofrespondent No.3 have been attached under the provisions of Section281B of the Income Tax Act, as respondent No.3 has not paid its duesto the respondent income tax authorities. In our opinion, the present petitioners cannot be said to beaggrieved by the impugned order dt.6.3.2009, which is virtually againstrespondent No.3. It would be open to the petitioners to recover theamount due from respondent No.3 in accordance with law by any othermode available to them. We do not find any illegality committed by respondent No.2 inpassing the impugned order dt.6.3.2009 is concerned. Needless tosay that we have not decided the validity of the impugned order so faras respondent No.3 is concerned. The petition is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 29-07-2009 bnr ______________________RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J