Writ Petition No. 26968 of 2013. Case: M/s. Baba Stone Crusher Rep. by its Proprietor Ch. Sivaiah Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance) and Others. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 26968 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Pannala Srinivas, Adv. And For Respondents: GP for Mines & Geology |
| Judges | C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code |
| Judgement Date | September 17, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
-
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside demand notice No. 704/Vg/2013-1, dated 05.09.2013, of respondent No. 1, whereby he has levied a sum of Rs. 93,64,668/- comprising Rs. 15,60,778/- towards normal seigniorage fee and Rs. 78,03,890/- towards five times the normal seigniorage fee as penalty. I have heard Mr. Pannala Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geology.
-
The petitioner has set up a stone crusher unit at Vankayalapadu Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. It is involved in the activity of collecting the mineral, such as boulders of stone, from various quarry lessees and converting the same into metal crushing process. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the mineral collected by it from quarry lessees suffers seigniorage fee.
-
On 04.01.2013, the officials of the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement office have inspected the petitioner's unit and noticed 2,146.20 cubic metres of metal lying at the unit. After the said inspection, a notice was issued by the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement officer of Guntur on 28.01.2013 seeking information from the petitioner calling upon it to produce the documentary evidence regarding the payment of seigniorage fee for metal aggregates stack and disposal as on 04.01.2013. The petitioner pleaded that it has replied to the said notice on 04.02.2013 requesting to grant 10 days' time to it. Subsequently, the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement officer of Guntur issued a final notice on 06.02.2013 to the petitioner. On 12.02.2013, the petitioner gave a reply giving details of the mineral collected and used by it and also requesting the officer to return the papers and registers seized/taken from the crusher at the time of inspection. Thereafter, based on the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement officer's letter dated 15.07.2013, respondent No. 1 has issued show cause notice dated 18.07.2013 to the petitioner. After seeking time for submitting its reply, the petitioner has given a detailed reply on 29.08.2013. After receipt of the said reply, respondent No. 1 has issued the impugned demand notice.
-
The main ground of attack of the impugned notice is that it is bereft of any reasons whatsoever. The petitioner specifically pleaded that in its reply, it has categorically asserted that the entire mineral used by it suffered seigniorage fee and that it has enclosed the documentary evidence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial