IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST 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 : 18151 of 2008 Between: M/s. Anus Laboratories Limited, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri K. Haribabu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU) Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Manager, Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Patny Centre, Secunderabad. .....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 or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus granting stay of Collection of the Disputed tax of Rs.23,82,317/- for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) arising in pursuance of the assessment order dt. 27-2-2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent or to pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SURI BABU 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 : 18151 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-05, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and also seeking a direction to revoke the garnishee notice, dated 14.8.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. But the 2nd respondent rejected the same and posted the main appeal for hearing on 26.8.2008. Now, the steps are being taken for recovery of the disputed tax and in course of which, a garnishee notice has also been issued. 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. Sri Sainath, Counsel representing Sri S. Suri Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and that the appeal is posted to 26.8.2008 for hearing and at this stage, the 1st respondent is not justiﬁed in issuing the garnishee notice and in these circumstances, if the relief of stay is not granted, the garnishee notice is not revoked and if the entire 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 main appeal pending before the 2nd respondent, is posted to 26.8.2008, for hearing, we are not inclined to grant stay at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar Date: 21st August, 2008 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18151 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 21/08/2008