IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18068 of 2008 Between: M/s Wipro Infortech Enterprises Solutions, (A Division of Wipro Ltd), Sy.No.64, Madhapur, Hightech City, Hyderabad, Rep by its Senior Manager (Techonologies Division) Mr. Niren Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the stay application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the disputed penalty amount of Rs.12,96,379/- for the tax period 2004-05 under CST Act and the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed penalty even during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and contemplating to take coercive steps as illegal arbitrary, high handed, with out authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty amount of Rs.12,96,379/- for the tax period 2004-05 under CST pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the second respondent refusing to stay collection of the disputed penalty amount of Rs.12,96,379/- for the tax period 2004- 2005 under CST Act and the action of the first respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed penalty amount pending appeal before the second respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to restrain the first respondent from taking coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty amount, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the business of development of Software Programmes and is a registered dealer under the provisions of the APGST, APVAT and CST Acts on the rolls of the first respondent. During the assessment year 2004-2005 to 2006-07, the petitioner has purchased certain goods from other states against declarations in Form C and made representation to the first respondent to include the same in the CST Registration Certificate. But the first respondent without either rejecting or including the same, has levied penalty through his order, dated 21.6.2008, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the second respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed stay application, which was rejected by the order impugned in this writ petition. Pursuant to the order rejecting stay, the first respondent has issued notice dated 11.8.2008 directing the petitioner to remit disputed penalty amount within seven days and in default, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act would be initiated for its recovery. 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 appeal, the issuance of notice demanding to pay the penalty amount 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 25% of the penalty amount. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount 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. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar. August 20, 2008 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs //BO//MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}