Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vasireddy Nirmala vs State Of A.P. 1 & W.P.No.17017 Of 2002 on 18 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010192752008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 18607/2008
Between:
Vasireddy Nirmala, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Commercial Tax Officer and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K VENKATESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
2. SURIBABU S(SPL SC FOR CT AP)
The Court made the following Order: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner herein, had stood as surety, for the 3rd respondent, for
payment of sales tax, at the time of registration of the 3rd respondent, under
the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax, 1957 (herein referred to as 'the
A.P.G.S.T. Act').
2. The petitioner has now approached this Court, being aggrieved by the
impugned notice, dated 04.08.2008, issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax
Officer-3, Aryapuram Circle, Rajahmundry demanding payment of
Rs.1,01,458/- being the arrears of tax, which had not been paid by the 3rd
respondent for the assessment years 1992-1993, 1993-1994 & 1994-1995.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, he would be liable for payment of tax
only for one (01) year after the registration of the dealer and relies upon a
judgment of a Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, in W.P.No.26389 of 2005 & batch, dated 20.03.2007.
4. In this judgment, a Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh, after noticing the judgment of the Court in the case of New
Kamal Bar & Café, Hyderabad Vs. State of A.P. 1 & W.P.No.17017 of 2002
had held that Section 12 (7) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act read with Rule 28 (8) & 28
(14) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 make it amply
clear that the liability of the surety is only against the tax payable for (01) year.
In the present case, the registration of the dealer was for the year 1992-1993
and consequently, the petitioner would be liable only for the tax arrears of
1992-1993.
5. The impugned notice states that the tax arrears due for the year 1992-
1993 is Rs.30,150/-. This Court, by an interim direction, dated 13.10.2008,
had granted stay of collection of the dues, on the condition of the petitioner
depositing 1/3rd of the amount demanded under the impugned notice.
42 APSTJ 77
6. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has
been compliance of this direction and a sum of about Rs.33,000/- had been
paid.
7. In that view of the matter and keeping in view the fact that the liability of
the petitioner is restricted to Rs.30,150/-. It would be appropriate to close this
Writ Petition setting aside the impugned notice, dated 04.08.2008, with a
further direction that the amounts paid out by the petitioner shall be adjusted
against the liability of the petitioner for the year 1992-1993.
8. In the event of the petitioner not having paid the said amounts directed
by this Court in the interim order, dated 13.10.2008, it would be open to the
respondents to recover the said amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
Date:18.09.2024
KPV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO:18607 of 2008
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
18.09.2024
KPV
