IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.35114 of 2014 BETWEEN M/s.Baba Fakruddin Stone Crushers.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The grievance of the petitioner herein is similar to petitioner in W.P.No.32714 of 2014, dated 31.10.2014, which was already disposed of by this court by order, dated 31.10.2014. Petitioner herein states that it is the stone crusher unit and supplies the stones after crushing to M/s.NSP Constructions, Pulivendula, Kadapa District as per the agreement between them dated 19.03.2011 and the said contract work is relating to Renigunta- Cuddapah-Rayalacheruvu Road. As such, the seigniorage fee, therefore, will be paid by the supplier to whom the petitioner supplies the material.
However, a demand notice was issued for payment of normal seigniorage fee on the quantities determined under the demand notice. Petitioner states that he never received any demand notice and having come to know of the said demand notice, he preferred revision before the Government on 15.09.2014, which is pending. Petitioner states that he has already deposited normal seigniorage fee of Rs.2,38,400/- on 05.09.2014. Though the petitioner has deposited the normal seigniorage fee, respondent No.3 has seized the Crusher without notice and without opportunity to him. Hence, the seizure of the Crusher is itself questioned in this writ petition.
3. As stated above, a similar writ petition viz., W.P.No.32714 of 2014 was earlier disposed of following the earlier orders in W.P.Nos.29239 and 29240 of 2014, dated 13.10.2014. Hence, there shall be a like order in this writ petition also, which is as under:
“In view of the above, for the present, the seizure of petitioner’s unit is required to be lifted subject to certain conditions.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:
1) Since the petitioner states that he has already deposited normal seigniorage fee on 05.09.2014 by way of challan, respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall verify the said deposit and on being satisfied, open the seals.
2) Revision petition filed by the petitioner on 15.09.2014 shall be heard and disposed of by respondent No.1 expeditiously and the deposit made by the petitioner, as above, shall be subject to further orders that will be passed by respondent No.1 in the revision and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are at liberty to recover the balance amount, if any, from the petitioner subject to the orders of respondent No.1 in the said revision.”
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 19, 2014 LMV