IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2008 Dated : February 4, 2008 Between: M/s. Prime Innovations & Contractors, Rep. By its Proprietor Sri GV Padmanabha Rajum S/o late G.P. Venkatarama Raju, R/o:5-239/4/C, HP Road, Moosapet, Hyderabad. Petitioner AND The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Fathenagar Circle, Hyderabad and another Respondents THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the demand notice issued by the first respondent dated 29.1.2008 passed in TIN No. 2858019263, pending appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Rural, and insisting for payment of the disputed tax of Rs.1,51,750/-, penalty of Rs.37,937/- and interest of Rs.36,752/- for the period from May to September, 2005, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently to direct the first respondent not to collect the disputed sales tax, penalty and interest pending appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent. The petitioner was assessed for the period from May to September, 2005 by the second respondent and was levied with the tax at a higher rate, denying the concessions claimed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal to the first respondent, which is pending. Pending appeal the first respondent, issued the impugned notice demanding payment of the disputed tax, penalty and interest, as stated supra. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending an appeal, the issuance of impugned notice demanding to pay the disputed tax, penalty and interest is contrary to law. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending Appeal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the disputed tax, and 25% of the penalty and interest. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit half of the disputed tax and 25% of the penalty and interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the tax, pending appeal. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________ G.ROHINI, J. February 4, 2008 MAS