This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4 in addressing a letter, dated 10.08.2018, to respondent No.3 – Joint Registrar, Nallapadu of Guntur District, not to alienate the property covered by Sy.No.123 and 124 in Plot No.201, bearing H.No.26-46-137 in an extent of 213.8 Sq. Yards, as illegal and consequently sought direction to respondent No.3 not to abide by the said letter

This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondent No.4 in addressing a letter, dated 10.08.2018, to respondent No.3 – Joint Registrar, Nallapadu of Guntur District, not to alienate the property covered by Sy.No.123 and 124 in Plot No.201, bearing H.No.26-46-137 in an extent of 213.8 Sq. Yards, as illegal and consequently sought direction to respondent No.3 not to abide by the said letter

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.37651 of 2022

ORDER:-

This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the

action of respondent No.4 in addressing a letter, dated

10.08.2018, to respondent No.3 – Joint Registrar, Nallapadu of

Guntur District, not to alienate the property covered by

Sy.No.123 and 124 in Plot No.201, bearing H.No.26-46-137 in

an extent of 213.8 Sq. Yards, as illegal and consequently sought

direction to respondent No.3 not to abide by the said letter.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for

Commercial Tax appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Originally Mr. Y. Madhusudhana Reddy and Y.

Bhupalreddy formed into a partnership firm under the name

and style “M/s. Sri Narayana Traders” and did business in

selling tobacco. They availed loan from Dhanalakshmi Bank by

mortgaging the property in the name of the firm, to the Bank. As

they committed default in discharging the said loan amount, it

appears that the Bank has sold away the said property that was

2023:APHC:1479

2

mortgaged for realization of the loan amount from the said

M/s.Sri Narayana Traders. The petitioner has participated in

the auction held by the Bank and purchased the said property

from the Bank in the year 2013 i.e., on 04.12.2013 under the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short, “SARFAESI

Act”). The Bank has also registered the sale deed in favour of

the petitioner in respect of the said property. So, the petitioner

became absolute owner of the said property. The petitioner has

also subsequently entered into development agreement with the

builder and constructed apartments in the said property and

also sold away some flats in it.

4. While so, when the petitioner approached respondent

No.3 – Joint Registrar of Nallapadu, Guntur District, for the

purpose of selling the leftover flats, in the year 2022, at that

time, it was informed by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner

that respondent No.4 – the Commercial Tax Officer, Kothapet of

Guntur District, has addressed the impugned letter, dated

10.08.2018, stating that M/s. Narayana Traders, who are the

dealers on the rolls of Commercial Tax Office of Kothapet, fell in

arrears of Rs.37,54,536/- under the CST Act for the period from

2023:APHC:1479

3

2009 to 2010 and that she intends to recover the said arrears of

Tax under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short “RR Act”)

and thereby requested him not to alienate the said property.

5. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court

questioning the legal validity of the impugned letter, dated

10.08.2018, addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3,

seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

6. Admittedly, the property that was earlier owned by

M/s.Sri Narayana Traders was mortgaged by them to

Dhanalakshmi Bank at the time of availing loan. As they

committed default in payment of the said loan amount, the

Bank has sold away the said property under the SARFAESI Act

and the petitioner became successful bidder in the auction that

was held and the said property was sold away to the petitioner

under the registered sale deed, dated 04.12.2013, executed by

the Bank in favour of the petitioner. By virtue of the said sale

deed, the petitioner became absolute owner of the said property

long back in the year 2013. The petitioner has also, thereafter,

entered into development agreement and constructed

apartments and sold away some flats in it. As there are few

leftover flats, when the petitioner approached respondent No.3

2023:APHC:1479

4

to sell away the said flats in the year 2022, at that time, it was

informed to him that the impugned letter, dated 10.08.2018,

was addressed to the 3rd respondent by the 4th respondent.

7. The said letter was obviously addressed in the year 2018

after the petitioner has become absolute owner of the property

in the year 2013 itself, as discussed supra. Therefore,

respondent No.4 cannot prevent the petitioner from disposing of

his own property by requesting the 3rd respondent by the

impugned letter not to allow the petitioner to alienate the said

property, for the purpose of recovering the tax arrears from

M/s.Narayana Traders under the RR Act.

8. Further, as can be seen from the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, no

such power is conferred on the 4th respondent – Commercial Tax

Officer to address any such letter to the Joint Registrar i.e.,

respondent No.3 not to allow the petitioner, who admittedly

became owner of the said property in the year 2013, to alienate

the said property. Section 27 of the Act only confers power on

the concerned authority to order for provisional attachment of

the property and Section 29 of the Act only enables the

Commissioner or any authority prescribed to issue notice in

writing requiring the person from whom any money is due to the

2023:APHC:1479

5

defaulter in payment of the taxes or to any person who holds

any money on behalf of the defaulter, not to pay the same to the

defaulter and the same may be adjusted by way of recovery of

the same towards due amount payable towards arrears of tax by

the defaulter. But no power is conferred on the 4th respondent

to address any letter or give any direction to the Joint Registrar

not to effect registration of the documents or not to allow the

owner of the property to alienate the said property. Therefore,

the impugned letter that was addressed by the 4th respondent to

the 3rd respondent is without any competence and authority

under the A.P.VAT Act. Therefore, it is clearly unsustainable

under law. Respondent No.4 ought to have taken appropriate

steps under the A.P. VAT Act for recovery of the due amount of

tax from M/s.Narayana Traders, who is the defaulter in

payment of the said tax, and respondent No.4 cannot prevent

the petitioner from alienating his own property.

9. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case,

the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the impugned letter

addressed by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent is legally

unsustainable. As a sequel, there shall be a direction to

respondent No.3 not to act upon the said letter, dated

2023:APHC:1479

6

10.08.2018, addressed by respondent No.4 and prevent the

petitioner from alienating his property. However, it is made clear

that the 4th respondent is at liberty to initiate appropriate action

according to law for recovery of the arrears of tax from

M/s.Narayana Traders. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

______________________________________________

JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date: 23.01.2023.

Note:

L.R. copy to be marked.

B/O

AKN

2023:APHC:1479

7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No. 37651 of 2022

Date: 23-01-2023

AKN

2023:APHC:1479

8

*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

+ Writ Petition No.37651 of 2022

% Dated 23-01-2023

# M/s.Sai Maruthi Constructions rep. by

Gummadi Venkata Ravi Shankar

….. Petitioner

Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Revenue (Stamps and Registration) Department, AP Secretariat,

Velagapudi, A.P. & Ors.

…..Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy

^ Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: Learned Assistant Government

 Pleader for Revenue

 Counsel for respondent No.4: Learned Govt. Pleader for

 Commercial Taxes.

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

2023:APHC:1479

9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Writ Petition No.37651 of 2022

M/s.Sai Maruthi Constructions rep. by

Gummadi Venkata Ravi Shankar

….. Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue

(Stamps and Registration) Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi,

A.P. & Ors.

…..Respondents

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 23-01-2023

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

 --

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

 -Yes3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see

the fair copy of the Judgment?

 -Yes-

 JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

2023:APHC:1479