IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7391 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Raj Hydro-Mech Engineers, 4-3-181, Mahankali Street, Secunderabad, Rep. By its Proprietor Mr. Vinod Shah ..... PETITIONER AND The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, 5th Floor, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally, Hyderabad, and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to continue the order passed by this court in WP No. 10012 of 2009 pending disposal of appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary firm engaged in the business of ranges, dairy plug valve and other engineering items and is a registered dealer on the rolls of second respondent under APVAT Act. The second respondent issued a notice dated 15.10.2008 disallowing the claim of input tax on the ground that the petitioner has claimed excess input tax credit on fake claims for the period from June, 2005 to March, 2008 and consequently raised a demand of Rs.5,62,468/- and also issued a penalty notice dated 29.10.2998 proposing to levy 200% along with interest, rejecting the replies submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, which was dismissed by an order dated 18.12.2009. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner also filed WP No. 10012 of 2009 against the rejection of stay and pursuant to the conditional stay granted by this court, the petitioner paid 25% of the disputed tax amount. Hence, this writ petition is filed praying to extend the stay granted in W.P. No. 10012 of 2009. 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 before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the issuance of attachment notice dated 17.3.2010 by the second respondent for recovery of the due under Sec. 29 of the APVAT Act, is illegal. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty and interest amount. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the interest and penalty amounts within a period of four weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amounts of interest and penalty. If any amounts are already paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 06, 2010 MAS