IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19342 of 2008 Between: M/s. Wipro Infotech Enterprises Solutions, ( A Division of Wipro Ltd. ) Sy.No. 64, Madhapur, Hightech City, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Senior Manager ( Technologies Division), Mr. Niren Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Division, hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the natur eof writ of Mandamus declaring the action of teh 2nd respondent in dismissing the stay application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the disputed penalty amount of Rs.19,81,602/- for the tax period 2007-08 under CST Act and the action ofthe 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed penalty even during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and contemplating to take coercive steps as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, with out authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty amount of Rs. 19,81,602/- for the tax period 2007-08 under CST pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19342 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per T HE HON’BLE MRS. JUST ICE T .MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 31.07.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in rejecting to grant stay of collection of penalty of Rs.19,81,602/- pending appeal, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed penalty pending appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the application for stay of collection of disputed penalty ﬁled along with the appeal has been dismissed by the 2nd respondent resulting in coercive steps being taken against the petitioner for recovery of the disputed penalty amount, pending the appeal, which is contrary to law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending Appeal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount pending appeal. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 8-9-2008 Asp/gs