CANARA BANK Vs. THE COMMERICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal arises out of an order passed in W.P. No. 16999 of 1993 refusing to grant an interim order. Therefore, by consent of parties, the writ petition also is treated as being posted before us for final disposal along with the Writ Appeal No. 87 of 1994.

(2.) The petitioner is the Canara Bank. It sought for a writ in the nature of a mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed against the goods hypothecated to it by the assessee, namely, the second-respondent in the writ petition for recovery of the tax due from the second-respondent. As the learned single Judge has refused to grant the interim order, the writ appeal is preferred.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the assessee has paid the tax due from it. A letter to that effect has also been written to the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5 dated 25-1-1994, stating that the arrears of tax have been collected from the assessee by the Commercial Tax Officer, Washermanpet-I. This being the position, the very prayer made in the writ petition does not survive, because the question of proceeding against the goods hypothecated to the petitioner-bank by the assessee does not now arise, as the arrears have been paid by the assessee. Hence, the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) that the arrears due from the second respondent (assessee) have been recovered and there is no need to proceed against the goods hypothecated to the petitioner bank is placed on record. The writ appeal and the writ petition both are disposed of in terms of the above said submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes). There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.