IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10316 of 2009 Between: M/s. Kashinath Metals Private Limited 186/1/A, Ankireddipalli, Keesara-503 301, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. N. Chandra Sekhar Rao ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Keesara Circle, Saroornagar Division 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioenr (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal Andhra Pradesh, 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 a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the Order passed by the 3rd Respondent dt. 17-2-2009 in Proceedings in CCTs Ref.No. LIII(4)/38/2009 in refusing to grant stay of recovery of the disputed penalty of Rs. 14,67,396/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the APGST Act, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary high handed and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty of Rs. 14,67,396/- for the assessment year 2004-05 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents .: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10316 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri B. Prakash Rao,J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is heard and disposed of finally. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting revision application by the impugned order dated 17-02-2009. It is stated that questioning the assessment order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with stay application and the stay application was dismissed on 06-01-2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision application before the 3rd respondent which was also dismissed on 17-02-2009. Having regard to the same, we feel that interest of justice would be met if stay is granted pending appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing one- fourth of the disputed penalty amount, pending disposal of the appeal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of granting stay subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing one-fourth of the disputed penalty amount, pending disposal of the appeal, within a period of six weeks from today. The amount, if any, deposited shall be given credit to. Further, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. ___________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J DATE: 20th May, 2009 _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY,J Ks/pnb