IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3883 of 2008 Between: M/s. Reliance Petro Marketing (P) Limited, 202, Lakeshore Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. rep. by its Manager-Taxation, Sri B.V.D. Nagaraj Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Appallate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.5,58,11,575/- for the assessment year 2005-06 (July, 2005 to March, 2006) (APVAT) arising in pursuance of the appeal order of the second respondent dated 16.01.2008 read with the notice dated 20.02.2008 issued by the first respondent pending disposal of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: Special Standing counsel for Commercial Taxes. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3883 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.5,58,11,575/- for the assessment year 2005-06 (July, 2005 to March, 2006) (APVAT) arising in pursuance of the Appeal Order of the 3rd respondent dated 16.1.2008 read with the notice dated 20.2.2008 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The case of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.1.2008 dismissed the appeal on tax and remanded on interest. Against the said order, the petitioner filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and stay petition before the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent has issued notice dated 20.2.2008 requiring the petitioner to pay the balance tax within 3 days failing which to initiate action under Section 15(4) and 16(3) of the APVAT Act, 2005. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent the petitioner filed W.P. No. 13801 of 2007 and this Court vide order dated 2.2.2007 disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the tax liability and 25% of the interest amount and granted stay till disposal of the appeal. The 2nd respondent has disposed of the appeal and now the 1st respondent is seeking to enforce the collection of the balance 50% of the disputed tax. In view of the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we feel that the interest of justice would have been met had the stay granted pending appeal, subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed tax liability of Rs.5,58,11,575/-. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct that there shall be stay of disputed tax, pending appeal, subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax of Rs.5,58,11,575/- on or before 31st March, 2008. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. The amount, if any, already paid in this regard shall be given credit to the amount to be deposited. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.MEENA KUMARI, J. G.ROHINI, J. February 26, 2008. Note: Issue copies in four days. (BO) MVB.