THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3133 of 2008 Date: 15th February, 2008 Between: M/s. G.S. Power Consultants, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad, Rep by its Proprietor, Mr. S. Venkata Chary ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Vengalarao Nagar Circle-I, Hyderabad and others. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3133 of 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent in dismissing the stay petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 23.1.2008, as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same. It also seeks a consequential direction to restrain the first respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 21,94,771/- for the assessment year 2004-2005, pending disposal of the appeal filed by it before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, which is a proprietory concern dealing in works contracts, is a registered dealer under the A.P.G.S.T. and C.S.T. Acts. It is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. While so, the first respondent passed an assessment order on 25.7.2007 levying tax. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, the second respondent herein. The 2nd respondent, through order dated 24.9.2007 while confirming the order of the assessing authority, dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal. Pending disposal of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed an application seeking stay of collection of balance disputed tax before the 3rd respondent. But, the 3rd respondent rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the 3rd respondent is not justified in rejecting the stay application. It is further contended that by virtue of the rejection of stay application, the 1st respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 15th February, 2008 ______________ G. ROHINI, ,J Note: Communicate the operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/o pnb