Wp/14046/2013 Of G. Dhananjaya Naidu v. The Union Of India, Rep.by The Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
25 Jun 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/14046/2013 Of G. Dhananjaya Naidu v. The Union Of India, Rep.by The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
25 Jun 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/14046/2013 Of G. Dhananjaya Naidu v. The Union Of India, Rep.by The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Writ Petition No.14046 of 2013--Date: 25062013
Between:
G. Dhananjaya Naidu
..
Petitioner
AND
The Union of India, represented by theCommissioner of Income Tax, Tirupathi Charge,Tirupathi and another
.. Respondents
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Writ Petition No.14046 of 2013
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G. Rohini)
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that theaction of the 2[nd] respondent in issuing attachment order dated 13-12-2012 under Section 281 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 isarbitrary and illegal.
While issuing Rule Nisi, this Court by an order dated 30-04-2013 in WPMP.No.17154 of 2013 directed the respondents toconsider the petitioner’s application dated 08-01-2013 forsubstitution of the attached property and pass appropriate ordersin accordance with law.
Now the counter affidavit has been filed by the 2[nd]respondent stating that in pursuance of the interim order dated 30-04-2013, the petitioner’s application has been considered and anorder has been passed on 28-05-2013. A copy of the said orderhas also been attached to the counter affidavit and the same hasbeen served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view offresh order came to be passed on 28-05-2013, the cause in thewrit petition does not survive and therefore, no further enquiry isnecessary in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it opento the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28-05-2013 byworking out the appropriate remedy as available under law, if soadvised.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shallstand closed.
__________________
K.J.SENGUPTA, CJ
Date: 25-06-2013
_____________
G. ROHINI, J
Ksn/Gsn
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.