Sri Jagannatha Swamy, Sri Anjaneya Swamy & Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temples, Lalapet, Guntur, rep. by its Executive Officer, R. Ravanamma D/o. R. Gangaiah, aged 43 yrs. V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Guntur and The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Guntur and The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Kannavarithota, Guntur and Bank of India, Kothapet Branch, Guntur

WP/6395/2009

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Jagannatha Swamy, Sri Anjaneya Swamy & Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temples, represented by its Executive Officer, R. Ravanamma, challenging the coercive recovery actions taken by the Income Tax Department for unpaid taxes assessed for the year 2006-07. The temples had appealed against the tax assessment and sought a stay on the recovery, which was partly granted, requiring them to pay 50% of the assessed tax. The temples failed to pay this amount on time, leading to the banks being directed to remit the entire amount to the tax authorities. The temples contested this action, leading to the current writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805365 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B SARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V KOUNDINYA
• Keywords: Appeal Pending; Coercive Recovery; Income Tax; Writ of Mandamus; Violation of Art. 14
• Section: 226(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6395 of 2009 Between: Sri Jagannatha Swamy, Sri Anjaneya Swamy & Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temples, Lalapet, Guntur, rep. by its Executive Officer, R. Ravanamma D/o. R. Gangaiah, aged 43 yrs. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Guntur. 2 The Joint Comissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Guntur. 3 The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Kannavarithota, Guntur. 4 Bank of India, Kothapet Branch, Guntur. .....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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking coercive steps for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6,39,000/- pending disposal of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guntur for the Assessment year 2006-07 as bad in law, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the notice dated 12.03.2009 & 16.03.2009 issued by the 1st respondent, Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(2), Guntur, u/sec. 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.KRISHNA KOUNDINYA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondents 3 and 4. Permission is granted. 2. Rule. Service of notice is waived by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri B. Narasimha Sarma. 3. The petitioner has been aggrieved by orders dt.12.3.2009 and 16.3.2009 passed under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act by respondent No.1 whereby, Andhra Bank, Kannavarithota, Guntur and Bank of India, Kothapeta Branch, Guntur have been directed to remit the amount belonging to the petitioner to the Income Tax Department. 4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under. The petitioner is an assessee and could not pay the amount of tax and therefore the impugned orders have been passed. In pursuance of assessment order dt.31.12.2008 for the assessment year 2006-2007, the petitioner has to pay tax of Rs.6,39,200/-. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which is pending. An application for stay of recovery of the income tax had also been filed. The same has been partly allowed whereby the petitioner was directed to pay 50% of the amount of tax within a particular period. The said amount could not be paid by the petitioner and therefore the impugned orders have been passed by respondent No.1. 5. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that 50% of the amount, which could not be paid by the petitioner, would be paid within eight weeks from today. It has been submitted that, in fact, approximately an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- had already been paid so far and approximately Rs.60,000/- is yet to be paid. Further, the petitioner - temple requires some funds for its daily puj as and maintenance of the temple. Simply because the aforesaid 50% of the amount was not paid by the petitioner, the stay, which was granted earlier, has been vacated and therefore the entire amount of tax has become payable and therefore the aforesaid two banks have been directed to remit the entire amount lying with the said banks belonging to the petitioner to respondent authorities. 6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that remaining amount of 50% would be paid within eight weeks from today, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside on condition that the remaining amount of 50% of tax shall be paid by the petitioner within eight weeks from today. 7. As the petitioner could not pay the 50% of the amount of tax, the stay which had been granted by the appellate authority has also been vacated. We direct that the original position should be restored on condition that the petitioner pays remaining amount of 50% within eight weeks from today. 8. It is clarified that if total 50% of the tax payable by the petitioner is not paid within eight weeks from today, the stay of recovery granted by the appellate authority shall automatically stand vacated. 9. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26.3.2009 bnr Note: Operative portion of the order may be communicated by WIRE at party’s costs to the respondents and the banks. (B.O) bnr "