IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5674 of 2010 Between: M/s. Diana Hotels Limited, Begumpet, Hyderabad, rep., by its Accounts Manager S.V. Sesha Sai. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Somajiguda Circle, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5674 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax for the tax periods 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 vide order dated 16.2.2010 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The case of the petitioner is that challenging the order of the 3rd respondent, it had preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and it had also filed an application before the 4th respondent seeking stay of the balance disputed tax pending the appeal before the Tribunal, but the 4th respondent rejected the stay application. Now, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed tax. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and that the petitioner had already paid 50% of the disputed tax but consequent to the order impugned herein, the authorities are insisting for payment of the balance disputed tax and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and the entire disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, on or before 31st March, 2010. However, it is made clear that the amount paid if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 11th March, 2010 Note: Wire at party’s costs (BO) nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5674 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 11/03/2010