IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17520 of 2008 Between: M/s.Pearl Beverages Private Limited, 302/325, Nadimpalem, yadlapadu (SPO), Guntur-522019, rep. by its Vice President-Finance Mr.Bimal Kumar Agarwal ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT),VMU-I Guntur Division, Guntur 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Guntur Division, Guntur 3 The Joint 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 mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the notice dated 4.8.2008 issued by the 1st respondent demanding of balance disputed tax of Rs.2,16,049/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.4,32,100/- for the year 2005-06 under the APVAT Act and consequently restrain him from taking any coercive steps for recovery of balance disputed tax of Rs.2,16,049/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.4,32,100/- for the year 2005-06 under the APVAT Act pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : . THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17520 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the notice dated 4.8.2008 issued by the 1st respondent demanding balance disputed tax for the year 2005-06 and consequently, to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of balance disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the assessment order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending. The petitioner filed a stay petition before the 3rd respondent and the said stay petition has been heard and no orders have been passed so far. While so, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed tax by issuing the impugned notice. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending and that the application seeking stay of recovery of the tax is also pending and that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax and at this stage, the action of the 1st respondent in issuing notice demanding payment of the disputed tax is arbitrary and in these circumstances, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the balance 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 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 of Rs.2,16,049/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.4,32,100/-for the period in question, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from today. 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 P.V. Sanjay Kumar Date: 12th August, 2008 NOTE: C.C in one week (BO) nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17520 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 12/08/2008