Wp/13113/2009 Of Putta Kishore v. The Commissioenr 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 PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVEANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13113 of 2009 Between: 1 Putta Kishore S/o. Ramulu R/o. H.No. 3-7-135, Rajeevnagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2 Bojja Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy R/o. H.No. 3-5-131/1/A, Jammigadda Locality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circlr 9(1) Hyderabad. 3 M/s Peeshonu Marketing Private Limited, Vijaya Colony, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Chief Managing Director Theppali Saidulu, S/o. Bixam. Nalgonda District, Rep. by its Chief Managing Director Theppali Saidulu, S/o. Bixam. 4 State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryapet Main Branch, Nalgonda District. Rep. by its Branch 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 to declare the orderpassed by the 2nd respondent dt.6-3-2009 in F.No.281B/DCIT/2008-09 U/Sec.281-B of the I.T. Act directing the 4th Respondent to freezethe account of the 3rd Respondent by which the cheques presented bythe petitioners were returned as being illegal, arbitrary andconsequently set aside the same by directing the Respondent No.4herein to honour the cheques presented by the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. PRABHAKAR BOMMAGANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.S.R.ASHOK (Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None appeared Counsel for the 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