Wp/7894/2005 Of K. Balakrishna v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7894 of 2005 Between: K. Balakrishna S/o. K. Dattatri, R/o. H.No. 1-3-3/D-C-1, Maheshwari NilayamKavidguda, Hyderabad-500 008. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Income tax-1, Government of India, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabad, Hyderabad.2 The Director General of Incometax (Inv.) 9th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Director Incometax (Investigations) O/o. Director General of Incometax (Inv.) Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writof Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the 3[rd] Respondent in not settlingthe bills a) to verify and settle the bill for Rs.1,21,038/- (Rupees One Lakh TwentyOne Thousand and Thirty Eight Rupees Only) as per letter dt. 5-9-2001, submitted tothe 3[rd] respondent with a time bound period as decided by the Hon'ble Court b) topay interest @ 18% p.a. on Bills outstanding from the date of submission ofletter/claim dt. 5-9-2001 and c) to pay in interim lump sum of Rs.50,000/- (FiftyThousand Only) to support himself and subside the acute financial situation. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.N.MADHU Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: MR.S.R.ASHOK (SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard. The writ petitioner claims to be the Secondary Supplier of Stationary itemsunder the name and style of ‘Plus Point Enterprises’. It is averred that he suppliedvarious stationary items to the 3[rd] respondent-Director of Income Tax (Inv.) since1998. The details thereof are mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition. It is asserted that he supplied stationary items which as per the invoice/cashmemo amounted to Rs.1,21,038/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3[rd] respondent in spite of repeatedrequests did not settle any of the bills raised during the year 2000 but continued toorder for supply of stationary items in the year 2001 by giving an oral assurance thatthe bills pertaining to the year 2000 and the current bills will be settled soon. Thepetitioner accordingly continued the supplies as per the invoice/cash memonumbers detailed in the affidavit amounting to Rs.35,741/-. The petitioner claims tohave submitted the bills on 05-09-2001. That an amount of Rs.34,741/- has beenpaid but without settling the previous bills pertaining to the year 2000. The petitionerthereafter submitted a detailed representation on 23-06-2003 to the 2[nd] respondentrequesting him to settle the bills and pay the amount due and payable to him. The petitioner, in the circumstances, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamusdirecting the 3[rd] respondent to verify and settle the bill for a sum of Rs.1,21,038/- asper his letter dated 05-09-2001 submitted to the 3[rd] respondent and also interest atthe rate of 18% per annum on bills outstanding from the date of submission of letterdated 05-09-2001. It is not possible for us to adjudicate as to whether any amount, as such, is due andpayable by the respondents to the petitioner herein, much less, the quantifiedamount of Rs.1,21,038/- by the petitioner. But at the same time respondents 1 and 3having received the supplies from the petitioner, cannot refuse to settle the bills of the petitioner. The bills of the petitioner are required to be settled by the respondentsafter verifying the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner. It is not possible for us to adjudicate as to whether any amount, as such, is due andpayable by the respondents to the petitioner herein, much less, the quantifiedamount of Rs.1,21,038/- by the petitioner. But at the same time respondents 1 and 3having received the supplies from the petitioner, cannot refuse to settle the bills of the petitioner. The bills of the petitioner are required to be settled by the respondentsafter verifying the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner. Interests of justice would be met by directing the respondents to consider anddecide the claim of the petitioner in terms of his representation dated 23-06-2003and take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law within a period often weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be an orderaccordingly. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. (B.Sudershan Reddy,J) Dated:07-06-2005 (Ramesh Ranganathan,J) GJ/KS To 1 The Chief Commissioner of Income tax-1, Government of India, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabad, Hyderabad. Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Incometax (Inv.) 9th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Director Incometax (Investigations) O/o. Director General of Incometax (Inv.) Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerabad, Hyderabad. 4 2 CD copies