IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9459 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Mistry Timbers & Furniture & Interiors, 12-1-923, Mallepally X Road, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Proprietor Sri Mohd. Abdul Mannan ..... PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner (CT)(Legal)(FAC) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed penalty of Rs.3,05,774/- for the year 2007-2008 under AP VAT Act pending Appeal before the second respondents as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and restrain respondents from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty, the present writ petition is filed The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of timber and cut sizes and is a registered dealer on the rolls of third respondent under APVAT Act. The fourth respondent on a visit to the business premises of the petitioner on 29.10.2009, found that the petitioner has not accounted for certain transactions and accordingly issued notice raising a demand of Rs.3,05,774/- and before the petitioner could reply, an order came to be passed in Form 305 on 11.1.2010 confirming the levy. While so, without adverting to the request of the petitioner to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance, as the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority against the order dated 11.1.2010, the fourth respondent passed an order dated 1.2.2010 confirming the levy raising a demand of Rs.3,05,774/- towards penalty. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal along with stay petition before the second respondent, who dismissed the stay petition by an order dated 3.3.2010. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent, which was also dismissed by the order impugned herein. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, he refused to grant stay, which was assailed before the first respondent in revision, which is also dismissed pending appeal before the second respondent. It is further submitted that taking advantage of the rejection of stay, the third respondent is contemplating coercive steps for the recovery of disputed penalty amount. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted 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 four weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amount of penalty. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 26, 2010 MAS