Wp/5229/2012 Of Munama Panduraranga Rao, Visakhapatnam v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax., Vizag & 4 Ot
High Court
26 Jun 2025 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · aphc
Parties
Wp/5229/2012 Of Munama Panduraranga Rao, Visakhapatnam v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax., Vizag & 4 Ot
Date of order
26 Jun 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/5229/2012 Of Munama Panduraranga Rao, Visakhapatnam v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax., Vizag & 4 Ot, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
APHC010396932012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
[3526]
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAOWRIT PETITION NO: 5229/2012
Between:
1. MUNAMA PANDURARANGA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM, PROP: M/S HANUMAN TRANSPORT 44-34-44, NADAGIRINAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.HANUMAN TRANSPORT 44-34-44, NADAGIRINAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIZAG 4 OT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABAGARDEN, VISAKHAPATNAM- 20BHAVAN, DABAGARDEN, VISAKHAPATNAM- 20
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II, 5TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABAGARDEN, VISAKHAPATNAM- 20BHAVAN, DABAGARDEN, VISAKHAPATNAM- 20
3. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4, 3RD FLOOR, PRATYASHAKAR BHAVAN, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.FLOOR, PRATYASHAKAR BHAVAN, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXAPPEALS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, DABAGARDEN, VISAKHAPATNAM- 20DABAGARDEN, VISAKHAPATNAM- 20
5. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring impugned order dated 17.2.2012
in F.No. CCIT/VSP. Tech/Stay Petition/1/2011-12 passed by the 1st respondent in so far as directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the tax on 29.2.2012 and remaining balance of 50% to be kept in abeyance till disposal of appeal or 15.3.2012 which ever is earlier as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the CBDT instructions issued in 95/96, and in violation of petitioner's rights guaranteed under Art. 14, and 300a of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 6652 OF 2012
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the 5th respondent pending appeal before the 4th respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.VIJAY KUMAR PUNNA
The Court made the following:
At the time of considering the matter, it is represented by
Mr. N Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the subsequent developments, the cause in the writ petition does not survive.
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
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.