TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Ag. C.J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is hereby finally disposed of. 2.. It appears for the months of June and July, 1994, there was a provisional assessment against the petitioner under section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and an additional tax liability of Rs. 70,00,000 was created ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner. It is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader that in pursuance of this garnishee order a sum of Rs. 33,31,254 was actually paid to it by the third respondent. Thereafter a fresh garnishee order dated February 28, 1995 was issued against the second respondent which happens to be the bankers of the petitioner-company requiring it to pay a sum of Rs. 37,63,000 against the balanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Department and a fresh garnishee order against the second respondent could not have been issued restraining it to pay the amount to the petitioner-company to the extent mentioned in the notice. 3.. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent tried to justify the impugned notice issued by the department by relying on the provisions of section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and to ask it to pay the amount demanded. For these reasons, we are of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned garnishee order dated February 28, 1995. 5.. In the result, this petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The impugned notice/order under section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, issued on February 28, 1995 against the second ....