IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19862 of 2008 Between: M/s. Padmavathi Agencies, Chirala, Rep. by its Proprietor, B. Kishore, S/o. Hari Prasad, Aged about 45 years, Chirala, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur Division, Guntur. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Chirala, Prakasam District. 4 The Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chirala, Prakasam District. .....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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the garnishee notice to the 4th respondent Banker directing to pay the disputed tax of Rs. 6,34,774/- for the year 2004-05 immediately after receipt of the notice impugned dated 08-09-2008, pending the appeal before the 2nd Respondent and the Stay Petition before the ﬁrst Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, improper and contrary to the recent judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, reported in 46 APGST, page 49 the Full bench Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of AP reported in 136 STC P 586 and consequentially to set aside the garnishee notice impugned in the Writ Petition dated 08-09-2008 and grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19862 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the garnishee notice dated 08-09-2008 demanding to pay the disputed tax for the year 2004-05, pending the appeal before the 2nd Respondent and the Stay Petition before the ﬁrst Respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially to set aside the same. It is the case of the petitioner that against the assessment made by the 3rd respondent, an appeal has been ﬁled before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. Along with the appeal, the petitioner ﬁled an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed demand. But the 2nd respondent dismissed the stay petition. Hence, the petitioner ﬁled a revision petition before the 1st respondent and the same is pending. At this stage, the 3rd respondent has issued a garnishee notice to the 4th respondent directing to pay the disputed tax. 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 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that the petitioner has also ﬁled a revision against the rejection of stay and the same is also pending and at this juncture, the issuance of the impugned notice is arbitrary and illegal and in these circumstances of the case, if the stay is not granted and if the 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 2nd respondent, 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 disputed tax for the assessment year in question, and also suspension of the impugned notice, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of eight 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 Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 12th September, 2008 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19862 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 12/09/2008