IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.29192 of 2009 Between: M/s. K.C. Pharma, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Partner Mr. Y. Satyanarayana .... Petitioner AND The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam Bench. .... Respondents HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.29192 of 2009 ORDER: (Per HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) - respondent No.1 in dismissing the stay petition in TMP No.220 of 2009 in T.A. No.117 of 2009 vide order dated 24-07-2009, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer in drugs & medicines, surgical goods etc., on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer - respondent No.3. For the assessment year 2003-04, the assessment was completed by respondent No.3 in Assessment No.1762/2003- 2004 vide order dated 07-01-2005. Thereafter, on 04-02-2005 respondent No.3 issued proceedings in G.I.No.1762/2003- 2004/P.R.No.19/2004-2004 alleging that certain irregularities were detected in the business premises of the petitioner on an inspection made by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Vijayawada and levied penalty of three times on the tax amount of the suppressed turnover. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 20-05-2005 reduced the penalty from three times to half of the tax on the suppressed turnover and consequently, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 03-06-2005 and collected the penalty from the petitioner. Thereafter, a revision was proposed and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling its objections and after receiving objections, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal) – respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated 23-1-2009 setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and restored the original penalty order dated 04-02-2005 passed by respondent No.3. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 along with stay petition and the same was dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 24-07-2009, which is impugned in this writ petition. Now, the petitioner is contending that respondent No.3 is threatening to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and perused the material available on record. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Tribunal but as the stay petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order, respondent No.3 is insisting for payment of the disputed penalty as such, if stay is not granted, respondent No.3 would recover the entire disputed penalty and in such circumstances, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel that it is a fit case wherein stay can be granted, subject to certain conditions. 6. Accordingly, there shall be stay of collection of the balance disputed penalty subject to the condition of petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty on or before 31-03-2010 before the Tribunal, and the amount, if any, already paid by the petitioner shall be given credit to the same and the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the balance disputed penalty, pending disposal of the appeal. The deposit of amount by the petitioner shall be without prejudice to its rights in appeal. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J March 18, 2010 KTL