Wp/8221/2009 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENTTHE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVEAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8221 of 2009 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee Rep. by its Spl. GradeSecretary Badepally, Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals V) 6th Floor, A Block, IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 3 The Sub Treasury Officer, Office of the District Treasury Office Badepally, Mahabubnagar Dist. Badepally, Mahabubnagar Dist. 4 The State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Branch Manager Badepally, Mahabubnagar Dist. Badepally, Mahabubnagar Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 noticedated 30-3-2009 issued Under Sec. 226(3) of the Income Tax Act bythe 1st respondent herein and given effect to the said notice by therespondents 3rd and 4th herein as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to theprovisions of the Income Tax Act and without jurisdiction and setaside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V.V.N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.J.V.PRASAD(STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4: N.A. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER:(per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner seekspermission to 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 facts as stated by the petitioner in a nutshell are asunder: Assessment order dated 18.12.2008 was made for theassessment year 2003-04 whereby the petitioner was called upon topay tax of Rs.73,41,994/-. Being aggrieved by the order ofassessment, an appeal has already been filed by the petitioner. Ithas been submitted that there is no provision with regard to filing anapplication for stay before the appellate authority and, therefore, theassessing authority was requested to stay the proceedings withregard to recovery of the amount of tax or to keep the orders ofassessment in abeyance by addressing a letter dt.26.2.2009, but noorder has been passed in pursuance of the said letter. Therespondent authorities are now making an effort to recover theaforestated amount by issuing a garnishee order. In the aforestatedcircumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that several petitions involving same legal issue have been entertained by thisCourt and the petitioners have been protected in all those cases uponpayment of certain amount. It has been prayed that similar order bealso passed in this matter. 6. The aforestated facts could not be disputed by the learnedstanding counsel. 7. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that it wouldbe just and proper if the appellate authority is directed to decide theappeal as soon as possible. 8. 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 threemonths from today, if the petitioner extends its cooperation. 5. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that several petitions involving same legal issue have been entertained by thisCourt and the petitioners have been protected in all those cases uponpayment of certain amount. It has been prayed that similar order bealso passed in this matter. 6. The aforestated facts could not be disputed by the learnedstanding counsel. 7. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that it wouldbe just and proper if the appellate authority is directed to decide theappeal as soon as possible. 8. 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 threemonths from today, if the petitioner extends its cooperation. 9. 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 three months from today and till the appeal is finallydisposed of, no recovery proceedings shall be initiated in pursuanceof the assessment order, which is subject matter of the appeal on acondition that the petitioner pays one-third of the amount of taxpayable under the impugned assessment order within four weeksfrom today. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, thesame shall be given credit to while calculating the amount payable bythe petitioner. 10. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no orderas to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 21.4.2009 bnr Note: C.C. by 22.4.2009. (B.O) bnr RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J