RITESH OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, etc., to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to recover the tax which is not levied as illegal, arbitrary and high handed, and consequently to quash the form I distraint notice dated October 7, 1995 and form II distraint order attaching goods worth of Rs. 1,68,000 issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively and also to quash the attachment order dated October 5, 1995, issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner's bank and the instructions said to have been issued by the 3rd respondent to M/s. Kedia Vanaspathi Limited to stop payment of Rs. 3,22,251 to the petitioner pursuant to its bill dated September 19, 1995.

(2.) When this writ petition came up for admission on October 10, 1995, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes placed before us the relevant file for showing that the impugned attachments were made in exercise of the powers under section 17-B of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"), after obtaining the previous approval of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The learned Government Pleader sought time for filing a counter-affidavit stating all the facts leading to the said attachments. Subsequently counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent, that is, the Commercial Tax Officer, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, dated October 12, 1995 is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner took time for filing reply and we have granted him time; but today he submits that as the matter turns on the interpretation of section 17-B of the Act and on whether the authorities concerned followed the requirements of the said provision on admitted facts, no reply affidavit would be necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition. In the circumstances, we heard both sides for the final disposal of the writ petition itself.

(3.) It is not necessary to enter into the details of the facts because we find that the requirements of section 17-B of the Act have not been complied with in the present case. Section 17-B of the Act is as follows :