IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5243 of 2009 Between: Kutala Bala Nageswara RAo S/o.Adaiah 4th stair , Siri Apartments, 4thLane Ashoknagar, Guntur ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District 2 The District Commercial Tax officer, Nellore 3 The Deputy Commercial Tax officer Markapuram Circle, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the naturew of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent herein issued proceedings vide Rc.No.147/2005 B5 dated 6.11.2006 in attaching thel and propert along with building and machinery (Rice Mill) in Survey No.540/4 in an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in Chandalur village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District is illegal arbitrary,and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aisde the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.S.MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5243 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the notification dated 16.11.2006 attaching the property of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court. We have heard the learned advocates. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner did not pay sales tax and therefore in pursuance of the impugned notice, his property is being attached. Upon perusal of the affidavit supporting the petition filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the demand notice had been served upon the petitioner in 2004. The said demand notice and other assessment orders, which must have been made earlier, do not appear to have been challenged by the petitioner. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, especially in view of the fact that the impugned order is a consequential order whereby the tax payable is sought to be recovered. The petition is rejected with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 17th March, 2009 asp