THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.NO.27895 OF 2009 22-12-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Annapurna Chemicals rep. by its proprietor K.Ram Prasad ...Petitioner vs. State of A.P, rep. by Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.NO.27895 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Alleging unlawful interference with its business pursuant to a notice dated 26-08-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent this writ petition is filed. The petitioner and others admit to have promoted an industrial Company, by name M/s Annapurna Agro Products Limited at Eluru in 1983. It is claimed that the said Company is in existence and has been filing accounts before the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner claims to have resigned from the Company as a Director in 2002 on the ground of ill-health and submitted a letter dated 06.03.2002 to the Managing Director of the said Company intimating the said resignation. After recovery of his health, the deponent Sri Ram Prasad started the petitioner-M/s Annpurna Chemicals as a proprietary concern, in 2007 and commenced production after obtaining licence to manufacture, in the year 2009. The petitioner also asserts that M/s Annapurna Agro Products Limited is continuing and is now under the management of other Directors. An amount of Rs.2,44,786/- is stated to be due by M/s Annapurna Agro Products Limited to the Commercial Taxes Department towards tax arrears for the year 1999-2000. An eventual appeal against this liability has been dismissed on 30-07- 2009 by the STAT, for default of appearance. The 2nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 26-08-2009 intimating personal liability of Rs.2,30,212/- allegedly without issuing a notice to M/s Annapurna Agro Products Limited or taking recourse for recovery from that Company. It is also alleged that the 2nd respondent is visiting the petitioner’s premises and harassing the petitioner to pay up the amount specified in the impugned notice, periodically. On obtaining instructions from the respondents Sri P.Balaji Varma, the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes states that the petitioner is required to respond to the notice and put forth what ever objections as advised and that the respondents deny the allegation that the respondents and in particular the 2nd respondent is visiting the petitioner’s premises on a regular basis and harassing the petitioner to pay the dues. It is stated categorically on behalf of the respondents by Sri P.Balaji Varma, that if the petitioner submits its response to the impugned notice or even otherwise, the respondents would take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, which does not however include personal visits or coercion of the petitioner to pay the dues. Commercial Tax dues are not collected in such fashion as alleged is the categorical assertion. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is satisfied by this assertion and submission made on behalf of the respondents by Sri P.Balaji Varma, the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. Recording this submission on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 22nd DECEMBER 2009 TSNR