IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 2621 of 2008 Between: 1. M/s. Sambasiva Trading Company Ghantasala, Krishna District, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri S. Naga Bala Bapana Rao S/o. Late Sambasiva Rao, aged 51 yrs. 2. S. Naga Bala Bapana Rao S/o. Late Sambasiva Rao H.No. 9/24, Ghantasala Village & Mandal, Krishna DIstrict. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Vuyyuru Krishna District. 2 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pamarru Division, Vuyyuru Krishna District. 3 The Deputy Commissioner (CT) No.II, Division, VIjayawada. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not granting registration to the 2nd Petitioner and proposing to auction the rice mill for recovery of the balance amount of about Rs.4.59 lakhs relating to the 1st Petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and consequently to set aside the Form No. 7 and 7-A notices dt.8-1-2008 issued by the 2nd Respondent by granting 10 equal monthly installments for payment of arrears and to direct the 1st Respondent to grant Registration under A.P. VAT Act to the 2nd petitioner forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.GIRISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Special Standing Counsel FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:2621 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not granting registration to the 2nd Petitioner and proposing to auction the rice mill for recovery of the balance amount of about Rs.4.59 lakhs as arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and consequently to set aside the Form No. 7 and 7-A notices dt.8-1-2008 issued by the 2nd Respondent by granting 10 equal monthly installments for payment of arrears and to direct the 1st Respondent to grant Registration under A.P. VAT Act to the 2nd petitioner forthwith. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner fell in arrears of about Rs.9,86,149/- towards sales tax and Rural Development Cess etc., for the years 1997-98 to 2001-2002 and therefore, the 1st respondent attached the rice mill for recovery of the arrears and subsequently, A.P. State Finance Corporation has also put one more lock during the year 2006 for recovery of its arrears. However, the 2nd respondent issued notice of attachment. While so, the 2nd petitioner paid the amounts due to A.P. State Finance Corporation and paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Commercial Tax Department and requested the 3rd respondent to grant 10 equal monthly installments for payment of balance amount. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 25.4.2007 has granted 10 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.68,615/- each commencing from 30th April, 2007. It is also the case of the petitioners that as the 1st respondent did not issue necessary forms and grant of registration under the VAT act, the petitioners could not pay the balance amount and as on today, an amount of Rs.4,59,520/- is payable by the 1st petitioner towards the arrears of Rural Development Cess for the years 1997-98 to 1998-99 and 2000-01 and 2001-02. While so, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 8.1.2008 proposing to sell the rice mill in public auction for recovery of the said amount towards R.D.Cess and Rs.18,000/- towards Profession Tax. Though the 2nd petitioner has requested the 1st respondent to grant some more time for payment of arrears, he has not responded. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner could not run the business in view of non-granting of registration by the 1st respondent and therefore, he could not pay the balance installments and in this regard, the 2nd petitioner made a request for grant of some more time and to issue appropriate permission/registration, but there was no response and therefore, a direction may be issued to the 1st respondent to grant registration so as to enable the petitioners to run business and to pay the due amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners for grant of installments for payment of the balance amount, We feel it a fit case wherein the impugned notice dated 8.1.2008 can be set aside on condition of deposit of Rs.50,000/- on or before 1st March, 2008 and the balance amount on or before 30th June, 2008. On payment of first installment as stated above, the 1st respondent shall grant registration to the 2nd petitioner. It is needless to observe that in case of default to comply with the above conditions, the notice, dated 8.1.2008 shall become operative. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the notice, dated 8.1.2008. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice G. Rohini Date: 18th February, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire At party’s costs (BO) Nn. HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:2621 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 18.2.2008