GRJ &RR,J W.P.No.26099 OF 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 26099 OF 2009 2.12.2009 Between: M/s Parle Agro Pvt Ltd. ..... Petitioner AND The Commercial Tax Officer (Intl), Abids Division, Hyderabad , and five others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (per SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) The order impugned in this writ petition is the order passed by the 6th respondent rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay of collection of the disputed penalty for the tax period 2008-09. Petitioner is a manufacturer of Fruit Drinks which are being sold in the market under the brand names ‘Appy’, ‘Grapo’, ‘Appy fizz’, ‘Grapo Fizz’ and LMN aqua. They have manufacturing units in the State of Andhra Pradesh and are registered on the rolls of 4th respondent. For the tax period 2007-08, the 4th respondent proposed to tax the petitioner at 12.5% treating the goods manufactured by them as aerated fruit drinks. Petitioner filed his objections before the 4th respondent who passed orders by proceedings dated 23.10.2007. For the tax period 2008-09 the 4th respondent issued show cause notice dated 4.5.2009 proposing to collect tax at 12.5% on the fruit drinks sold by the petitioner and, after receipt of the petitioner’s objections, passed an order of assessment dated 19.6.2009 levying tax at the rate of 12.5%. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent which is said to be pending as on date. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20280 of 2009 wherein this Court, by order dated 30.9.2009, granted stay of collection of the disputed tax on condition that the petitioner paid 75% of the disputed tax. While matters stood thus, the fist respondent issued notice dated 19.6.2009 proposing levy of penalty. Petitioner submitted their objections and thereafter the first respondent, by order dated 30.7.2009, levied penalty of Rs.22,70,386/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, they filed a revision petition before the 6th respondent who, by order dated 13.11.2009, (which the petitioner claimed to have received on 26.11.2009), rejected their request for stay. Sri T. Ramesh Babu, leaned counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that the drinks manufactured by the petitioner are liable to tax only at the rate of 4% and not at 12.5%. Learned counsel would also contend that they are entitled for the benefit of input tax which was denied to them. We see no reason to adjudicate these contentions on merits in view of the substantive appeal pending before the second respondent. As the petitioner has an arguable case on merits in the pending appeal both with regards the order of assessment and the penalty levied, ends of justice would be met if, pending disposal of the appeal by the second respondent, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps for collection of the disputed penalty on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the penalty within a period of six weeks from today, after taking credit for the amount, if any, already paid. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above after hearing both the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Commercial Taxes. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM,J RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 2.12.2009 Ka/Asp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies