Shaikkhajamohiddin vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that it could not determine the exact amount of rent due at that stage, as the petitioner's representation was pending before the 3rd respondent. To meet the ends of justice, the Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, submitted in response to the impugned notice, within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order. The 3rd respondent was also directed to pass a reasoned order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice until a decision was taken on the representation or for a period of five weeks from the date of the order, whichever was earlier. The Court did not decide on the legality or arbitrariness of the notice itself, deferring that to the 3rd respondent's consideration.
Facts
The petitioner, a lessee of Shop No. 700003, received a demand notice dated 01.08.2022 from the 3rd respondent for rent dues from 01.08.2020 to 30.04.2021, totaling Rs. 16,06,860/-. This amount included CGST, SGST, and penalty. The petitioner contended that they had already paid rent for six months within the demanded period and had submitted a representation with proof of payment to the 3rd respondent, which remained pending. The 3rd respondent acknowledged the representation and stated it would be considered. The High Court was asked to declare the demand notice illegal and set it aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated 01.08.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent, demanding rent dues from 01.08.2020 to 30.04.2021 along with penalty, is contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the demand was excessive as they had already paid rent for six months of the period in question. They had submitted a representation with rent receipts to the 3rd respondent, which had not been considered, and the authorities were insisting on payment as per the impugned notice. Revenue/State's arguments: The counsel for the 3rd respondent stated that the petitioner's representation, submitted pursuant to the notice, would be considered by the 3rd respondent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No. 27919 of 2022
JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Sridhar Tummalapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Katta Sudhakar, learned AGP for Municipal Administration, representing respondents No.1 & 2, Sri M. Santhosh Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Manohara Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for the counter affidavit.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: “…to declare the impugned Due Notice Vide Roc.No.LA-18- 1021023430, dated 01.08.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent demand to pay rent dues period from 01.08.2020 to 30.04.2021 along with penalty including Covid- 19 Lock Down and paid amount without renewing the lease period in respect of Shop No.700003, PVK Naidu Stair Case Rooms Complex, Market, Hindu College, Guntur as the same is contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Roc.No.LA-18-10210234
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.