Wp/5496/2009 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICEand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5496 of 2009 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee Sarangapur, Adilabad District,represented by its Secretary Gr.II. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Adilabad, Adilabad District. District. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals vi) 6th Floor, A Block, IT Towers, AC guards, Hyderabad. 3 The Sub Treasury Officer, Office of the District Treasury Office, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 4 The State Bank of Hyderabad, Nirmal, represented by its Branch Manager. Branch Manager. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the HighCourt will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actionof the 1st respondent in issuing notice dated 16-2-2009 issued underSec. 226(3) of the Income Tax Act by the 1st respondent herein andgiven effect to the said notice by respondents 3[rd] and 4[th] herein asillegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Actand without jurisdiction and set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: MR.J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER:(Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permissionto delete respondent No. 4. 2. Permission is granted. Respondent No. 4 stands deleted. 3. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri J.V. Prasad, learnedstanding counsel appearing for the respondents. At the request of thelearned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 4. The grievance which has been ventilated in the petition is thatan application praying for stay of recovery had been rejected by theauthority on the same day without assigning any reason. 5. The facts as stated by the petitioner in nutshell are as under: Assessment orders dated 13-02-2008 were made for theassessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 wherebythe petitioner was called upon to pay more than Rs.19,00,000/-. Beingaggrieved by the orders of assessment, an appeal has already beenfiled by the petitioner. It has been submitted that there is no provisionwith regard to filing an application for stay before the appellateauthority and, therefore, the assessing authority was requested to staythe proceedings with regard to recovery of the amount of tax or to keepthe orders of assessment in abeyance by filing an application and thesaid application has been rejected. As a result thereof, the respondentauthorities are making an effort to recover the aforestated amount byissuing a garnishee order. In the aforestated circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that severalpetitions involving same legal issue have been admitted and thepetitioners have been protected in all those cases upon payment ofcertain amount. It has been prayed that similar order be also passed inthis matter. 7. The aforestated facts could not be disputed by the learnedstanding counsel. 8. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that it would bejust and proper if the appellate authority is directed to decide theappeal as soon as possible. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondentauthorities has submitted that it would be possible for the appellateauthority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within fourmonths from today, if the petitioner extends his cooperation. 6. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that severalpetitions involving same legal issue have been admitted and thepetitioners have been protected in all those cases upon payment ofcertain amount. It has been prayed that similar order be also passed inthis matter. 7. The aforestated facts could not be disputed by the learnedstanding counsel. 8. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that it would bejust and proper if the appellate authority is directed to decide theappeal as soon as possible. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondentauthorities has submitted that it would be possible for the appellateauthority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within fourmonths from today, if the petitioner extends his cooperation. 10. In view of the above fact, it is directed that the appeal filedby the petitioner shall be disposed of as soon as possible andpreferably within four months from today and till the appeal is finallydisposed of, no recovery proceedings shall be initiated in pursuance ofthe assessment orders which are subject matter of the appeal on acondition that the petitioner pays one-third of the amount of tax payableunder the impugned assessment orders within two weeks from today. 11. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order asto costs. 12. Intimation of this order shall be given by respondent No. 1to State Bank of Hyderabad, Nirmal Branch, Adilabad to whom agarnishee order had been addressed by respondent No.1. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 18[th] March, 2009 ks Note: Furnish Copy in three days. B/O ks RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J