P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) AN unprecedented novel situation arose in the State o Andhra Pradesh due to the decisions of this Court holding certain portions of the Excise Policy of the State Government being bad ultimately paving the way for issuance of No. DDIT/u-1 (2)/2004-05, dated 16-3-2005 whereunder the Superintendents of Prohibition and Excise of the State of Andhra Pradesh were called upon by the 1st respondent, evidently representing the Investigative Agency of the Income Tax Department, to produce all the demand drafts along with the applications of the applicants within 24 hours of the delivery of the Judgment of this Court in pending Writ Petition in the manner indicated in the said proceeding purporting to exercise such power under Section 131 (1) and (1a) of the Income Tax Act 1961, hereinafter in short referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience. The said action is challenged by writ petitioners 1 to 4. The 1st petitioner is M/s. A. P. Wine Dealers Association, represented by its General Secretary, a registered Association, the 2nd petitioner is M/s. Twin Cities Wine Merchants Association, represented by its President, an unregistered Association and yet another two viz. , Sri Pentala Ramesh Babu and Sri Aravapalli Laxminarayana, who are said to be carrying on business as wine merchants. The 1st respondent is Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1 (2), Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent is the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Respondents 3 to 26 are the Prohibition and Excise, Superintendents in the State of Andhra Pradesh representing different Districts. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in calling upon the Superintendents of Excise and Prohibition in the State of Andhra Pradesh to produce the demand drafts submitted by various applicants within 24 hours of the delivery of the judgment by this Court in the pending Writ Appeals, no doubt at present disposed of, as illegal, arbitrary and in excess of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the Excise Superintendents to release the original demand drafts to the various without complying with the directions of the 1st respondent and to pass such other suitable orders.

( 2 ) SUBMISSIONS of Sri. S. Ravi, Counsel for writ petitioners: sri S. Ravi, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners would maintain that the 1st petitioner is a registered Association who would be ventilating the common cause and the common grievances of the members of the Association and the 2nd petitioner is an unregistered Association whereas petitioners 3 and 4 are the persons concerned with this wine business or trade. The learned Counsel mainly concentrated his submissions on the aspect of the power, authority or jurisdiction of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceeding calling upon different Excise and Prohibition Superintendents to submit the demand drafts aforesaid. The learned Counsel while making elaborate submissions had drawn the attention of this Court to the language employed in Section 131 of the Act and had compared the language of Section 131 of the Act with the language employed in Section 132 of the Act and had explained the scope and ambit of both the provisions and would contend that in the light of the stand taken by the Income Tax Department that these powers had been exercised by the 1st respondent under Section 131 (1) and (1a) of the Act it can be safely concluded that this action would not be protected falling under the issuance of summons for the purpose of Section 131 of the Act. The Counsel would submit that the Investigative Agency is definitely at liberty to take action following the procedure as specified by different provisions of the Act and not beyond thereto and at any rate omnibus summons or directives to all the Excise and Prohibition Superintendents

Click Here to Read the rest of this document