9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter, we do not find any ground to entertain the writ petition. Petition dismissed. - Writ Petition No.15877 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2020 - Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar And Ms Justice J. Uma Devi For the Petitioner : Sai Sanjay Suraneni For the Respondent : GP For Commercial Tax ORDER: SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Arya, learned counsel, who has appeared on instructions of Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. The petitioner against whom an assessment order was passed by respondent No.2 long back on 16.03.2016 has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reply and passed the assessment order on 31.07.2016. He submits that since the assessment order dated 31.07.2016 was itself unsustainable in the eye of law, the petitioner instead of taking recourse under the VAT Act, directly filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.No.31946 of 2016. However, the said writ petition was not entertained and dismissed as withdrawn on 19.10.2016. It has been argued that after withdrawal of the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.31946 of 2016, the petitioner filed a recall petition in the same writ petition. However, the said petition remained pending at a scrutiny stage itself. In the meanwhile, the respondents proceeded with the matter and finally sale notices were issued, which have been assailed in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In such circumstances, moreover, the recall petition even as per the pleading has not been assigned any number by this Court. According to him, the so-called recall petition appears to be an imagination of the petitioner only and on the core explanation, which has been taken by the respondents, which has come to the stage of sale of the properties, may not be interfered with. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have also minutely examined the material on record. It is evident that assessment order was passed by respondent No.2 long back on 31.07.2016 and by the said assessment order, the petitioner was asked to pay ₹ 1,28,84,045/- within 30 days. In view of statutory provision under the VAT Act against assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2017 by respondent No.2 and finally penalty order was passed on 31.03.2018, which is from page Nos.29 to 36. Since all the earlier orders had attained its finality, there was no option for the respondents than to take steps for recovery of revenue under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act. Accordingly, on 16.08.2019 under Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act notice of attachment of property was issued. Since even thereafter, no step was taken, finally sale notices were issued on 26.08.2020, which have been assailed in the present writ petition. In view of the fact that the assessment order itself attained its finality and writ petition, which was filed challenging the assessment order, was dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
