IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 9835 of 2009 Between: M/s. K. Mohan Reddy 3-6-427/3, Street No.6, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Partner K. Mohan Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda Circle, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application by proceedings dated 26.03.2009 in CCT's Ref.No.LV(1)/177/2009 as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and rule of law and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed demand of Rs.4,64,244/- for the assessment year 2004-05, under APGST Act, pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 9835 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application by proceedings dated 26.3.2009, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to grant stay of collection of the disputed demand of Rs.4,64,244/- for the assessment year 2004-05, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st appellate authority, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal and at the same time, the petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed demand, but the said stay petition was rejected by the 1st respondent. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending and that taking advantage of the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent refusing to grant stay of collection of the disputed demand, pending the appeal, coercive steps may be taken by the authorities and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and if the entire disputed demand is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed demand, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed demand, within a period of eight weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount already paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above- stipulated sum. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice B. Chandra Kumar Date: 6th May, 2009 Gurc/nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 9835 of 2009 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Meena Kumari) 06.05.2009