Yakkala Subba Rao V. The Assistant Commissioner, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada, AP and The Centralized Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and The Union of India, Ministry of Finance represented by its Secretary, New Delhi

WP/10029/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Yakkala Subba Rao, the petitioner, who challenged the demand notices issued by the Income Tax Department for alleged tax dues for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, and the subsequent attachment of his daughters' property. The petitioner argued that the demands were arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice and constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265. The court found that the demand for the assessment year 2008-09 was not supported by any assessment order, and the demand for 2010-11 was acknowledged by the respondents to be only Rs. 1,933/-, not the higher amount claimed. Consequently, the court set aside the attachment and ordered a refund.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840690 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• 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: Y VIVEKANANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: A RAO
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Attachment of property; Demand notice; Natural Justice; Refund; Tax dues; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

"APHC010201002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10029/2025 Between: 1. YAKKALA SUBBA RAO,, D.NO. 54-18-3/4, SIVAPURAM COLONY, ITI GATE, VIJAYAWADA - 520008 ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA, AP. 2. THE CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring that. A. the Demand Notice dated 14-03-2025 (Ex. P-1) issued by the 2nd Respondent, demanding alleged tax due of Rs. 22,47,510/-, and Rs. 3,85,964/- for the Assessment Years 2008-2009. and 2010-2011. respectively, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, B. the inaction of the Respondents in not revoking the attachment of the immovable property of the daughters of the petitioner, by the TRO-2, Vijayawada, vide attachment order dated 07-06-2011 (Ext. P-2) as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Articles 14,19(l)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, and C. the petitioner is entitled to the refund of Rs. 15,52,197/-, subject to adjustment of Rs.9,550/- towards the tax due for the A.Y. 2018-19, consequently, D. to set aside the attachment order dated 07-06-2011 (Ex.P-2) issued by the TRO-2, Vijayawada, E. to direct the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 15,42,647/- with consequential relief to the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner will be put to further irreparable loss and hardship, and/or F. to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the Demand Notice dated 14-03-2025 (Ex.P-1), pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y N VIVEKANANDA Printed from counselvise.com 3 The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner had received demand notice dated 14.03.2025, calling upon the petitioner to pay tax dues of Rs.3,85,964/- and Rs.22,47,510/- for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, respectively. Apart from this, another sum of Rs.9,550/- for the assessment year 2018-19 was also demanded. The petitioner being aggrieved by this demand, has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the demand of Rs.22,47,510/- for the assessment year 2008-09 does not exist, as no assessment order, raising such a demand, had been passed against the petitioner, nor has the petitioner received any such order. 3. The petitioner would also submit that the respondents, under the guise of recovery of the aforesaid amounts, adjusted a sum of Rs.12,98,737/-, which had arisen as a refund to the petitioner, and a further sum of Rs.2,53,460/-, which had also arisen as a refund for the assessment year 2024-25. Apart from this, the respondents had also attached the immovable property, belonging to the daughters of the petitioner, by way of an order of attachment, dated 07.06.2011, which was illegal, as no dues were payable by the petitioner. 4. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has specifically admitted that there were no Printed from counselvise.com 4 orders, for the assessment year 2008-09 raising a demand of Rs.22,47,510/-. In view of the specific admission by the 1st respondent that no demand has been raised against the petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09, the said amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has also filed an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 10.05.2011, for the assessment year 2010-11. The said order of intimation states that the net tax payable by the petitioner is Rs.1,933/-. This intimation is not disputed, and in fact, the 1st respondent, at paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit, admits that the demand for the said assessment year is only Rs.1,933/-. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner was not liable to pay any of the amounts raised in the impugned demand notice dated 14.03.2025. Consequently, no property of the petitioner, much less that of the daughters of the petitioner, could have been attached for recovery of the said amounts. 7. At this stage, Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned counsel, would submit that, there is no dispute that a sum of Rs.9,500/- was due. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the said amount has to be paid. 8. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions: Printed from counselvise.com 5 1. The order of attachment dated 07.06.2011, attaching the immovable property of the daughters of the petitioner is set aside. 2. The petitioner is entitled for recovery of Rs.15,52,197/-, subject to adjustment of Rs.9,550/-, payable under the demand notice dated 14.03.2025. 3. The 1st respondent shall ensure refund of the aforesaid amounts to the petitioner along with consequent interest, as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, read with relevant rules, within a period of six (06) weeks, from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Dt.17.02.2026 DSB Printed from counselvise.com 6 100 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP.No.10029 of 2026 Dated 17.02.2026 U DSB Printed from counselvise.com "