IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10330 of 2010 Dated: 29.4.2010 Between: M/s. Prathul Automobiles Private Limited, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep., by its Director B.S. Neelakanta ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Asst. Commissioner (CT) LTU, Punjagutta Division, 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 : 10330 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed penalty consequent to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 21.4.2010 in stay application in appeal No.PV/240/2009-10 and in contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and the stay petition before the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty for the month of December, 2009. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the penalty order passed by the 1st respondent, it had preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with stay petition. But the 2nd respondent rejected the stay application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision application before the 3rd respondent and the same is pending. While so, the 1st respondent is trying to initiate coercive steps for collection of the disputed penalty. 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 appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the 2nd respondent and the stay application is pending before the 3rd respondent and at this juncture, if the stay is not granted and the disputed penalty 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 2nd respondent, 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 disputed penalty during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penbalty, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made clear that the penalty amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 29th April, 2010 Nn/pnb. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO :10330 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29/04/2010