M/S. Jai Bhavani Steels And Cement ... vs The Additional Commissioner St
2025 Latest Caselaw 955 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S. Jai Bhavani Steels And Cement ... vs The Additional Commissioner St on 8 January, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                           AND
          THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

                 WRIT PETITION No.36145 OF 2024

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri M.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for

the State Tax for respondents.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes

exception to the order, dated 20.11.2024, whereby, the said

application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. One of the

reasons mentioned in not entertaining the stay petition is the

judgment of Asstt, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd [1985 (19)Elt 11

(SC). This judgment is reproduced in last but one paragraph of

the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said

judgment only shows the factors, on which stay application is to

be tested. The learned authority has considered the said

judgment, but, did not put the petitioner's case to test on the

basis of parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in case of

Dunlop India Ltd supra. Thus, the said order may be set aside

and the matter may be remitted back to the first respondent to

reconsider the stay application.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax

raised objection and supported the impugned order.

6. A careful reading of the impugned order shows that there is

substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner.

The first respondent has considered the judgment of Supreme

Court in Dunlop India Ltd's case supra and reproduced the

relevant portion. However, the litmus test laid down for the

purpose of considering the stay application has not been applied

in the case in hand. Putting it differently, the only legal principles

were spelled out, but, no reasons are assigned as to why

petitioner's case does not meet the said legal parameters. Thus,

the order is bad in law.

7. Resultantly, the order dated 20.11.2024 is set aside.

Learned authority shall rehear the parties on stay application and

pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, without getting

mechanically influenced by his previous order. The petitioner

shall appear before the first respondent on 20.01.2025 at

11:00 AM. For this purpose, no separate notice will be required to

be issued.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

_______________________________ DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

08.01.2025 sa/nvl