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.35077 of 2014 BETWEEN M/s.Mohan 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 10.03.2011 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, two demand notices were issued for payment of normal seigniorage fee on the quantities determined under each of the demand notices. Petitioner states that he never received any demand notice and having come to know of the said demand notices, he preferred revision before the Government on 09.10.2014, which is pending. After filing of the revision, respondent No.3 has seized the Machinery without notice and without opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the seizure of the Machinery 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) Petitioner shall deposit normal seigniorage fee on the quantities physically found in each of the demand notices without applying conversion factor. On deposit of such amount, seals shall be opened by the respondents on production of proof of payment by the petitioner.
2) Revision petition filed by the petitioner on 09.10.2014 shall be heard and disposed of by the first respondent expeditiously and orders as to deposit made by the petitioner, as directed above, shall be subject to further orders that will be passed by the first respondent in revision and respondents 2 to 4 are at liberty to recover the balance amount, if any, from the petitioner subject to the orders of the first respondent 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