IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 1818 of 2009 Between: M/s. My Home Industries Ltd. 9th Floor, Block - 3, 'My Home Hub' Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 081 Rep by its Director Mr. S. Sambashiva Rao ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Commissioner (CT), LTU, (I/c), Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. ...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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(4)/781/2008 dated 16-1-2009 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 19,89,029/- from out of the total disputed tax of Rs. 22,01,727/- for the assessment year 2005-2006 undr the CST Act pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Rule. 2. Service of notice is waived by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the learned advocates have made a request for taking up the petition for final hearing today and accordingly, the main petition is heard. 4. Being aggrieved by an order dated 16.1.2009 bearing No.LIII(4)/781/2008 passed by respondent No.3, this petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is an assessee under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. 5. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order dated 05.8.2008 bearing Asst.No.288701149513/2005-06 (CST) issued by respondent No.1. It had challenged validity of the said order by filing an appeal. Along with the appeal it had also filed an application praying for stay of collection of the disputed amount of tax. The same had been rejected by respondent No.2 on 08.12.2008 and against the said rejection order, a revision petition has been filed before respondent No.3. The said revision petition has been dismissed by respondent No.3 on 16.01.2009. Challenging the said order, this petition has been filed. 6. The assessing officer had come to the conclusion that F- Forms filed by the petitioner were not correct for the reason that they did not match with the utilization statement given by the dealers of Karnataka. On that basis, the afore-stated amount of tax was levied. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the afore-stated appeal has been filed, which is pending for hearing. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner assessee and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in matter relating to amounts stated in F-Forms, the afore-stated amount of tax had been levied upon it. According to the learned advocate, had the petitioner been given a chance, it could have explained that the mistake was committed by Karnataka dealers in giving details about the transactions in F-Forms. It has been submitted that for the mistake committed by the dealers in Karnataka, the petitioner could not have been directed to pay the amount of tax, which it is not liable to pay. In the circumstances, it has been submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, recovery of the tax be stayed. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the application for stay, as it did not find any prima facie case for grant of stay. 9. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that possibility of mistake committed by the dealers in Karnataka cannot be ruled out at this stage. Looking to the said fact, we direct that 50% of the amount payable by the petitioner by way of tax shall be deposited within six weeks from today and, if any amount has been paid so far, credit shall be given for the said amount. 10. The learned advocates have also made a request that respondent No.2 – appellate authority be directed to hear the appeal at an early date. 11. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has assured this Court that the petitioner shall extend its cooperation to respondent No.2 so that the appeal can be heard at an early date. 12. In the circumstances, it is directed that respondent No.2 shall decide the appeal as soon as possible, preferably within eight weeks from today. 13. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has assured this Court that the representative of the petitioner appearing before respondent No.2 shall not pray for time, unless it is really necessary to produce documents, which might be required by the appellate authority, and shall extend its cooperation to the appellate authority so that the appeal can be disposed of. 14. In view of the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ February 04, 2009. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note:: Issue copy by 10.2.2009. /B.O/ GRR/svs