IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2491 of 2009 Between: M/s. Kaveri Elevators Rep. by its Partner, Mr. A.V. Joshi No. 10-174/1, Vasantpuri Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500 047. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Audit Saroor Nagar Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 4 The Commercial Tax Officer Malkajigiri 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 to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction and quash the impugned order of the 3rd Respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(4)/803/2008 dated 23-1-2009 for the tax period 2006-07 under the APVAT Act, 2005 as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and consequently restrain the 4th Respondent from enforcing the payment of the balance disputed penalty of Rs.61,758/- out of the total disputed penalty of Rs.82,344/- for the tax period 2006-07 as per the orders of the 1st Respondent dated 16-7-2008, pending disposal of the appeals before the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned Advocates have requested for final disposal of the petition and, therefore, the petition has been taken up for final hearing today. The short question involved in this petition is as under: The order dated 23-1-2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, working in the Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P., Hyderabad bearing No. LIII(4)/802/2008 has been challenged in this petition. It is the case of the petitioner that no speaking order has been passed while rejecting the application for stay pending the appeal. The authority did not assign any reason for rejecting the application. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we also find that the authority has not given any reason for rejecting the application and simply by stating that there was no prima facie case to grant stay, the application has been rejected. It is a settled legal position that the judicial or quasi judicial authority should pass a reasoned order for coming to a particular conclusion so that not only the parties to the litigation can know the reasons, but the appellate authority can also know whether the conclusion arrived at by the concerned authority is just and proper. In the instant case, the afore-stated settled legal proposition has not been respected by the authority. For the afore-stated reason, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23-1-2009 and remand the matter to the said authority for deciding it afresh. We are sure that the authority shall record the reasons for coming to a particular conclusion after hearing the concerned parties. The learned Advocates have agreed that the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad shall hear the stay petition afresh on 24-2-2009 at 11-00 AM and the learned Advocate for the petitioner has waived service of notice and, therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the petitioner. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also assured this Court that his counter-part appearing before the authority shall not pray for time so that the authority can hear and decide the matter afresh at an early date. Till the stay application is finally disposed of and the order is communicated to the petitioner, there shall not be any coercive recovery of the amount of penalty from the petitioner. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 11th February, 2009. GRR