M/S. SHIVANI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES v. CTO, KHAIRATABAD CIRCLE, HYD. AND 3 OTHERS
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-27. M/S. SHIVANI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES v. CTO, KHAIRATABAD CIRCLE, HYD. AND 3 OTHERS. Read the...
Judgment text
13417 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRlT PETITION NO:9102 OF 2010 Between: M/S. SHIVANI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES, a registered partnership firm, having its registered office at H. No. 8-2-268M24-'1 , Vivekananda Enclave, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Partner K- Muralidhar Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad Circle, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 2. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, having its office at Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. 4. Chief Mechanicla Engineer (Chassis & Board), APSRTC, C-120, 1st floor, A Block, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 500 024.
,.... RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in'the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned aftachment order in Form vAT 206 datd 27. 03. 2010 issued by the 1st respondent for recovery of difference of tax of Rs. 8,07,3971 to the 4th respondent, in pursuance of the Notice of Demand for Unpaid Value Added Tax issued in Form VAT 202 daled 14. 12. 2OO9 passed by the 1st respondent. l. A. No. l of 2010 (WPMP. No. 11756 OF 2010I Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrr nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1 re pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Demand for Unpaid Val r : Added Tax issued in Form VAT 2O2 dated 14. 12.
2009 passed by the 1st responder t including recovery of balance tax of Rs. 8,07,397/- . No. 2 of 2010 P. No. 11757 OF 2010 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ,r nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may lr r pleased to direct the 3rd & 4th respondents to pay the difference in rate of tax t ) the credit of the 1st respondent over and above the agreed price and taxes beinr; extra as per the terms of the work order and the agreement, without deducting the s rme from the amounts due and payable by the 4th respondents to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. S. S. KAILASNATH, ADV( CATE FOR SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : SPL. GP FOR CCrl IMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : SRI S. KRISHNA MUR-- lY Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : SRI K. MADHAVA RECI rY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY THE H,N,URAB,,,fl?
,,ICE NAR'TNG RAo NANDIKONDA \{rit Petition No. 9102 0F 2010 Dated. :27. 01 . 2026 Between: M/s. Shivani Engineering Industries A registered Partnership Firm Having its Office at H. No. 8-2-268 lV /24-1, Vivekananda Enclave, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Partner Mr. K. Muralidhar Rao. . . . Petitioner AND Commercilal Tax Officer, Khairtabad Circle, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad & others. . . . Respondents ORDER: (per Hon'bte Sri Justice p. Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. P. S. S. Kailasnath, leamed counsel representing Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. I I 2. The challenge in the present writ petition was issuance of Gamishee notice by the respondents. The writ petition is of the year 2010 and there was an interim order in operation which still holds good in favour of the petitioner. 3.
Since the challenge was only issuance of rrnishee notice 1; and the present writ petition is pending before the Iigh Court for the past more than 15 years and by efflux of time . he cause may not survive any further insofar as issuance of garr shee notice is concerned 4. Learned counsel on either side does not disp :te the same. 5. In view of the same, we dispose of ttt writ petition holding the matter as being infructuous by ef lux of time Nonetheless, the right of the petitioner stands resery :d to move an appropriate application in case ifthe cause still surv \ es. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendinp , if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/-A.. ,I S. GOWRI SHANKAR A! ;;ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad Circle, l/ ryur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cont rercial Tax Building Nampally, Hyderabad. 3.
The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Trans; crt Corporation, having its office at Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. 4. The Chief Mechanicla Engineer (Chassis & Boardr, TGSRTC, C-120, 1st j1O floor, A Block, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabarl 024. 5. Two CC's to SPL. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, Hitl Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) a r. r- +^ eDr T aat a [rnHANt atrnnv Ar{rrnnafo t{'] )l lnl ^^^ T. OneCCtoSRIK. MADHAVAREDDY(SCFORAPSRTC),AdvocatelOPUCl 8. One CC to SRI S. KRISHNA MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies SA BS dt. HIGH COURT DATED: 2710112026 I I 1 Af: ".. - /"- l. 't':. i to :. 1 o t 212$ I 2B j-r il ORDER . b * . ;,;, WP. No. 9I02 of 2010 trr. - f i :: - --' DISPOSING OF THE W. P WITHOUT COSTS. il{ ,\"\"
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.