Andhra Pradesh Housing Board 'Gruhakalpa' Reptd. by its Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner V. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 5 Hyderabad and The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5 Hyderabad and State Bank of Hyderabad and A.P. State Financial Corporation and Cyberabad Hitech Integrated Township Development (P) Ltd. and Indu Eastern Projects Private Limited

WP/6762/2009

AI Insights

The case involves the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, a government corporation, which filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and others, challenging an assessment order dated 30-12-2008 for the year 2006-07. The petitioner had already filed an appeal against this order, which was still pending, along with a stay application to halt recovery proceedings. The High Court, considering the circumstances and the ongoing appeal, decided to restrain any coercive recovery actions until the appeal is resolved, emphasizing the need for a swift decision by the appellate authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 681237 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAVI
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Pending appeal; Writ of Mandamus; Stay of Recovery Proceedings
• Section: 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6762 of 2009 Between: Andhra Pradesh Housing Board \"Gruhakalpa\" Reptd. by its Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, M.J. Road, Hyderabad - 500 001.R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 5 Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5 Hyderabad. 3 State Bank of Hyderabad Reptd. by its Branch Manager Gruhakalpa Branch, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 A.P. State Financial Corporation Beside Little Flower School, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. 5 Cyberabad Hitech Integrated Township Development (P) Ltd. 1009, 13th Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 6 Indu Eastern Projects Private Limited 1009, 13th Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....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, direction or order especially in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the Respondents from initiating any proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to the Assessment Order dated 30-12-2008 passed by Respondent No.1 during the pendency of the appeal filed by the Petitioner before Respondent No.2. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.RAVI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned advocate for the petitioner is permitted to delete respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 2. Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned advocates have requested the Court to take up the petition for final hearing today and accordingly, the petition is finally heard today. 4. The petitioner who is a Government Corporation was aggrieved by assessment order dated 30-12-2008 for the year 2006- 07 and, therefore, it has filed an appeal before respondent No. 2. The said appeal is still pending. The stay application filed by the petitioner for stay of recovery proceedings is also pending. 5. At this juncture, this petition has been filed so as to see that the amount sought to be recovered under the assessment order is not recovered by using coercive method. 6. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, it would be just and proper if the appellate authority decides the appeal as soon as possible. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that it would be possible for respondent No. 2 to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks from today, if the petitioner extends its cooperation to the appellate authority. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has assured this Court that the petitioner or its representative shall not pray for time and shall appear before the appellate authority so that the appeal can be disposed of as soon as possible, as suggested by this Court. 9. Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that the appeal shall be decided by respondent No. 2 within eight weeks from today. 10. In view of the above direction, the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner under the impugned assessment order shall not be recovered till the appeal is finally decided in view of the fact that during the pendency of this petition, a sum of Rs.3.14 Crores has already been paid or adjusted against the demand made by the respondent authorities. 11. Intimation of this order be forwarded by the respondent authorities to the concerned institutions to whom garnishee order had been issued. 11. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, 8th April, 2009. ks "