The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner,

[ 348e 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO:2242 OF 2009 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad - lll, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND '1 . lncome Tax Settlement Commissioner, Additional Bench, Sadguru Complex, 640, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 035. 2. M/s. Sri Maruthi Rama Projects Engg. Combines (P) Ltd., Sy No 266, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh - 580 116. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in the proceedings of Settlement Application No. 502/AP-ll/4i2000 lT dated 04-10-2007 on the file of the first respondent and declare the impugned order dated 04-10-2007 to the extent to which they are against the petitioner, as illegal and set aside the same Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (sENtoR sc tNcoME TAx) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. KEETHANA REDDY REP SRI S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL The Court made the following: ORDER tt

o THE HONOURABt.E SRI JUSTICE P.SAM (OSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CH4 LAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.2242.of 2OO! QBDEE: (per the Honbte Sri tustice p.Sam Koshy) Heard Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the petitioner, and Ms;, Keerthana Reddy, learned counsel, representing Mr. S.Ravi, learned ! enior Counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by th ) petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the or der passed by the Settlement Commission in Setflement Application Nc,. 502lAp-II/4/2OOO- IT. 3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearinr , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that pendinr the instant writ petition before this Court, the r€spondent No.2 ( ompany had got amalgamated by way of a company petition i.e. Coml) tny petition No.67 af 20ll, decided on 09.09.2011, along with batch of (ompany petitions. It is further submitted that since the respondent No 2 Company itself pending the writ petition was amalgamated with M/s. (l yogenic Industrial ; l

t I Page 2 of 3 Consultants Private Limited, nothing further would survive and the entire dispute now raised by the petitioner is only of academic interest. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, on the other hand, referring to the order passed in Company Petition No.67 of 2011 submits that the Income Tax Department does not seem to have been made a party in those proceedings, nor.were they noticed or taken into confidence while the company petition was allowed. Therefore, she contends that pendency of the present dispute and the claim raised by the Income Tax Department could not be apprised to the Hon'ble Court while the company petition was allowed. 5. However, upon due consideration of the factual matrix of the case, more particularly going into the contents of the order passed by this High Court in Company Petition No.67 of 2011 and batch, it appears that it was categorically brought before the authorities concerned that as on date when the Company Petition No.67 of 2011 and batch was filed and as on date when the said Company Petitions stood disposed of, there were no secured or unsecured creditors available so far as respondent No'2 is concerned in the present writ petition. It was in this context that the Company Petition No.67 of 2011 and batch stood allowed. 6. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, admittedly no claim has till date been crystallized flowing from the claim raised by the It I I I I I j iI I I i I I I

/. ,a petitioner herein, and down the line respondent No.,2 Company has got amalgamated by virtue of the order passed by .J is High Court in company Petition No.67 0f 2011 and batch. In view c)r the same, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition, rs such, as of now is only of academic interest and nothing substantiar r rourd be achieved even if it is finally adjudicated upon. 7. Accordingly, we do not intend to proceed furth,: with the instant writ petition and the same stands disposed of at this sta le. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending iF any, shall stancl 919!.eq. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/ M. OSMAN ALI ASS ISTANT REGIS Page 3 of 3 //TRUE COPY// BA]G,---J \ SECTION OFFICER + To, ti.. 1. The lncome Tax Setflem^ent Commissioner, Additional t), .nch, Sadguru " 99Tp]gr, 640, Anna Satai, Chennai 6-00 d35"",--' ' rHr"r".? to SRI BoKARo SAPNIRE-doiiSeruron s( rNcoME TAx) l. ?,i3 33 t"":* s RAVr, sENroR couNSEL ropucl BM BS II l I ii 1l iI I i

*. &, ,+ * HIGH COURT # DATED:03/0912025 1 ORDER 17 Jrr202E ? ;3 ) i,q 1 # '* ,, I i :. / Sl>' ,l/ 1.-..-2.. ::-: -' WP.No.2242 ot 2009 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v I i i i" I I f I I Iil : t I * I f