M/S Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd, vs Recovery Officerii, Drt,
2022 Latest Caselaw 455 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 455 AP
Judgement Date : 31 January, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd, vs Recovery Officerii, Drt, on 31 January, 2022

     HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI


       HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
                              AND
           HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI


               WRIT PETITION No.41658 OF 2018
M/s. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Ltd., represented by
its Managing Director, Ch. Raghuram,
Reg.Office 6-3-663/16/1, Jaferali Bagh,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082                      ...     Petitioner


             Versus

1. Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Department of
   Finance Services, Ministry of Finance,
   Government of India, H.No. 31-31-21,
   Narayana Bhavan, Saibaba Street, Dhaba Gardens,
   Visakhapatnam - 530 020

2. Central Bank of India, Kakinada Branch, Kakinada,
   represented by its Senior Manager

3. Bandaru Narasimha Rao, S/o. Panduranga Rao,
   M/s. Sri Siddhartha Infratech and
   Services (I) Private Limited,
   Near Bharathiya Vidhya Bhavan, Road No.84,
   Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 033, Telangana
                                             ...      Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. V. Uma Devi, Advocate

Counsel for respondent no.2 : Mr. Ch. Siva Reddy, Standing Counsel, Central Bank of India

Counsel for respondent no.3 : Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, Senior Counsel, Mr. D. Chaitanya, Advocate

ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31.01.2022

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Heard Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mr. Ch. Siva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

no.2 - Central Bank of India and Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana,

learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. D. Chaitanya, learned

counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. The petitioner had moved the Court for the following relief:

"....to issue any appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in extending the time-frame in favour of the 3rd respondent for compliance with Rule 57(2) of I.T. Rules for recovery of Tax under Second Schedule to I.T Act, 1961 vide the impugned proceedings in RP No.14/2009 in OA 9/2006 dt. 08.11.2018 as arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires the IT Rules of Recovery of Tax in the Second Schedule to IT Act, 1961 with a consequential declaration that the auction proceedings held on 14.06.2018 in pursuance of the auction notification dt.09.05.2018 as nonest in the eye of law for non-compliance with Rule 57(2) in the interest of justice and pass further or necessary or appropriate orders....."

3. The challenge in the writ petition was to the order of the

respondent no.1, dated 08.1l.2018 granting 15 days time for the

respondent no.3 to deposit the remaining balance 75% of the

auction bid amount for confirmation of the sale held on 14.06.2018

and issuance of sale certificate.

4. However, by subsequent development in terms of order

dated 19.11.2018 as clarified by order dated 24.01.2019 in I. A.

No.2 of 2018 in the present case, the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Visakhapatnam in R.P. No.14 of 2009 in O.A. No.09 of 2006 by

order dated 25.01.2019 granted further 15 days time to the

respondent no.3 to deposit the balance bid amount of 75%. The

writ petitioner has assailed the said order in writ petition No.1105