Agricultural Market Committee, Adilabad, rep.by its Selection Grade Secretary V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Adilabad, Adilabad District and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6th floor, A Block, IT Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad and The Dy. Director, Office of the District Treasury Office Adilabad, Adilabad District and The State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Adilabad, rep.by its Branch Manager

WP/3879/2009

AI Insights

The case involves the Agricultural Market Committee, Adilabad, which filed a writ petition against the Income Tax Officer and other respondents challenging the issuance of a garnishee order for tax recovery. The petitioner contested the rejection of their stay application by the assessing authority, which led to the issuance of a garnishee order. The High Court considered the petitioner's request for a stay on recovery proceedings pending the appeal against the assessment orders for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06, which demanded payment of over Rs. 2,00,00,000. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties by allowing the appeal to be heard expeditiously while providing temporary relief to the petitioner from immediate financial burden.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 819418 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Sec.226(3) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: V V N NARAYANA RAO
• Keywords: Assessment orders; Garnishee Order; Income Tax; Stay of recovery; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 226(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3879 of 2009 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee, Adilabad, rep.by its Selection Grade Secretary ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1,Adilabad, Adilabad District 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appelas) 6th floor, A Block, IT Towers,AC Guards, Hyderabad 3 The Dy.Director, Office of the District Treasury Office Adilabad, Adilabad District 4 The State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Adilabad, rep.by its Branch Manager .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent having issued notice under Sec.226(3) of the Income Tax Act stated to have been issued to the 3rd and 4th respondents herein as per letter NO.A1/80/2009 dated 13.2.2009 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein as illegal, and arbitrary 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 permission 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, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 4. The grievance which has been ventilated in the petition is that an application praying for stay of recovery had been rejected by the authority on the same day without assigning any reason. 5. The facts as stated by the petitioner in nutshell are as under: Assessment orders dated 22-12-2008 were made for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay more than Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the orders of assessment, an appeal has already been filed by the petitioner. It has been submitted that there is no provision with regard to filing an application for stay before the appellate authority and, therefore, the assessing authority was requested to stay the proceedings with regard to recovery of the amount of tax or to keep the orders of assessment in abeyance by filing an application and the said application has been rejected. As a result thereof, the respondent authorities are making an effort to recover the aforestated amount by issuing a garnishee order. In the aforestated circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that several petitions involving same legal issue have been admitted and the petitioners have been protected in all those cases upon payment of certain amount. It has been prayed that similar order be also passed in this matter. 7. The aforestated facts could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel. 8. In view of the above facts, we are of the view that it would be just and proper if the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal as soon as possible. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that it would be possible for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within three months from today, if the petitioner extends his cooperation. 10. In view of the above fact, it is directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of as soon as possible and preferably within three months from today and till the appeal is finally disposed of, no recovery proceedings shall be initiated in pursuance of the assessment orders which are subject matter of the appeal on a condition that the petitioner pays one-third of the amount of tax payable under the impugned assessment orders within two weeks from today. 11. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. 12. Intimation of this order shall be given by respondent No. 1 to State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Adilabad to whom a garnishee order had been addressed by respondent No.1. ______________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th February, 2009 "