THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 12411 of 2010 Dated: 3.6.2010 Between: M/s. Salute Water House Pvt. Ltd., Guntur District. ..PETITIONER And 1. The Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes, Guntur and others. ..RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 12411 of 2010 Order: (Per Sri Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Govt. Pleader for Taxes. The writ petition is mis-conceived. The petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the garnishee notice dated 18.5.2010 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Lalapet Circle, Guntur, the 2nd respondent herein. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the 2nd respondent herein. For the assessment year, 2002-03, the petitioner was assessed to tax by 2nd respondent granting exemption of tax on turnover. While so, the 1st respondent herein, issued a show cause notice seeking to revise the said assessment. The petitioner submitted its objections to the said notice. Subsequently, the 1st respondent revised the assessment order by confirming the proposed revision and enhanced the quantum of liability of tax. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7863 of 2008. Initially, interim stay was granted in the said writ petition and by an order dated 8.7.2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax amount before 30.8.2008. Besides this, the 1st respondent was also directed to decide the issue within one month after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in default, it was mentioned that the order impugned therein would become operative. It is stated that owing to some financial constraints, the petitioner could not deposit the entire amount of disputed tax and he had deposited an amount of Rs. 4.00 lakhs as against the total disputed tax of Rs. 17.00 lakhs. While so, in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this court dated 8.7.2008 in the earlier writ petition, the 1st respondent herein, issued a notice to the petitioner on 18.10.2008 calling upon him to appear before him on 3.11.2008 for personal hearing . In response to the said notice, the Managing Director of the Company has appeared before the 1st respondent on 3.11.2008 as directed, and submitted its written arguments bringing to his notice about the scope and applicability of Rule 6(3)(i) of the A.P.G.S.T. Rules. Even before any decision was taken by the 1st respondent in the matter, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 26.4.2010 seeking to recover the disputed tax. The petitioner submitted its objections to the said notice on 3.5.2010 bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent about the pendency of the matter before the revisional authority. However, the 2nd respondent without taking into consideration the said aspect, issued the impugned garnishee notice on 18.5.2010. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that inasmuch as the matter is pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the 2nd respondent was not justified in issuing the impugned garnishee notice. He further stated that the petitioner company is facing acute financial crisis and under these circumstances, it could be practically impossible for it to pay any amount. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned garnishee notice be set aside. Admittedly, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 7863 of 2008 before this Court challenging the order of the revisional authority and the said writ was disposed of subject to certain conditions mentioned as above. However, the petitioner did not comply with the said order fully and has only deposited Rs. 4.00 lakhs on 30.8.2008 as against the total disputed tax of Rs.17.00 lakhs. If the petitioner was really not in a position to comply with the order granted by this court in Writ Petition No. 7863 of 2008, dated 8.7.2008, he ought to have approached this Court with appropriate application seeking modification or extension of time for complying with the said order explaining the financial constraints being faced by it. The petitioner did not take any steps till the issuance of garnishee notice. Instead, he filed the present writ petition challenging the garnishee notice. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to state that since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of disputed tax as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7863 of 2008, the order impugned in the said writ petition would become operative, as rightly mentioned in the said order. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 3rd June, 2010 ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD,J pnb