IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19630 of 2006 BETWEEN Kakarala Harimathi Devi. ... PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan availed by M/s. Macro Carbons Private Limited, the fourth respondent, from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, the first respondent. Owing to the default committed by the fourth respondent, the property offered by the petitioner as collateral security was brought to sale by the first respondent corporation. The present writ petition is filed assailing the letter dated 14.08.2006 addressed by the first respondent corporation stating that it would be in a position to ascertain the excess sale consideration realized from the sale of the petitioner’s property and refund the same only after settlement of various issues. A consequential direction is sought to release a sum of Rs.26,10,160/-, being the excess sale consideration, with accrued interest thereon from the date of accrual until payment. 2. Pursuant to the interim order dated 16.07.2009 passed by this Court in the present writ petition, directing the respondents to release a sum of Rs.5,53,629/- to the petitioner without prejudice to her right to claim a higher amount, a sum of Rs.5,28,081/- was paid to the petitioner under acknowledgement receipt dated 25.09.2009. A sum of Rs.25,548/- was deducted from the amount of Rs.5,53,629/-, directed to be refunded by this Court, towards panchayat tax dues. 3. Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned standing counsel for the first respondent corporation, submitted that notice dated 29.11.2004 had been received from the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vuyuru stating that a sum of Rs.18,13,258/- was due from the fourth respondent towards tax liabilities and that the said sum was to be adjusted from the sale proceeds realized by the first respondent corporation. Prior thereto, the first respondent corporation approached this Court by way of WP.No.21865 of 1999 challenging Section 16(C) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 which authorized the tax authorities to lay a claim over the amounts realized by the first respondent corporation. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the first respondent corporation was permitted by virtue of interim orders to conduct the sale and keep in a separate deposit, the amount equivalent to the fourth respondent’s sales tax dues. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 28.04.2010 and it is stated that the first respondent corporation approached the Supreme Court aggrieved thereby. The said case is stated to be pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. 4. Thus, as matters stand, the claim of the tax department with regard to its dues of over Rs.18 lakhs has to take precedence over the first respondent corporation’s claim. This would, of course, be subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition, said to be pending before the Supreme Court, arising out of the order in WP.No.21865 of 1999. Until the said issue is settled there would be no excess sale consideration, refund of which could be sought by the petitioner. 5. Insofar as the deduction of Rs.25,548/- towards panchayat taxes is concerned, Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner, disputes his client’s liability. However, the said dispute cannot be resolved in the present writ petition which was filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the excess sale consideration simplicitor. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the appropriation of the sale proceeds towards any particular head of account, she necessarily has to seek redressal independently by way of separate proceedings. Insofar as the issue of refund of excess sale consideration is concerned, the petitioner would have to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending SLP. The writ petition is accordingly closed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as are open to her in law, at the appropriate stage and time, for seeking redressal of her grievances. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 26, 2011 DSK