Agricultural Market Committee V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5 Hyderabad and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals V) and The Sub Treasury Officer, Office of the District Treasury Office Badepally, Mahabubnagar Dist. and The State Bank of Hyderabad

WP/8221/2009

AI Insights

The case involves the Agricultural Market Committee, represented by its Special Grade Secretary, as the petitioner, challenging a garnishee order issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Hyderabad, and acted upon by the Sub Treasury Officer and the State Bank of Hyderabad. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare the notice and subsequent actions as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The core issue arose from an assessment order demanding a tax payment of Rs.73,41,994 for the assessment year 2003-04, against which the petitioner had already filed an appeal. The petitioner argued that there was no provision for filing an application for stay before the appellate authority, and thus requested the assessing authority to stay the recovery proceedings, which was not acted upon, leading to the issuance of the garnishee order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797136 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: V V N RAO
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Garnishee Order; Income Tax; Stay of Proceedings; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 226(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8221 of 2009 Between: The Agricultural Market Committee Rep. by its Spl. Grade Secretary Badepally, Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5 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. 4 The State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Branch Manager Badepally, Mahabubnagar Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 notice dated 30-3-2009 issued Under Sec. 226(3) of the Income Tax Act by the 1st respondent herein and given effect to the said notice by the respondents 3rd and 4th herein as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act and without jurisdiction and set aside 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 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 facts as stated by the petitioner in a nutshell are as under: Assessment order dated 18.12.2008 was made for the assessment year 2003-04 whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay tax of Rs.73,41,994/-. Being aggrieved by the order 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 addressing a letter dt.26.2.2009, but no order has been passed in pursuance of the said letter. The respondent authorities are now making an effort to recover the aforestated amount by issuing a garnishee order. In the aforestated circumstances, 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 this Court 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. 6. The aforestated facts could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel. 7. 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. 8. 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 its cooperation. 9. 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 order, which is subject matter of the appeal on a condition that the petitioner pays one-third of the amount of tax payable under the impugned assessment order within four weeks from today. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to while calculating the amount payable by the petitioner. 10. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 21.4.2009 bnr Note: C.C. by 22.4.2009. (B.O) bnr "