IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13135 of 2008 Between: M/s. Suguna Poultry Farm Limited, Palamaner-517408, Chittoor District, Rep. by its General Manager, Mr. Dibyendu Kumar Dey. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Palamaner Unit, Chittoor-II Circle, Chittoor District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool Division, Kurnool. .....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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 2nd respondent in stay petition No.2/2008-2009 (CTR), dated 08.05.2008 in refusing to grant stay of collection disputed penalty of Rs.12,93,551/- for the assessment year 2003-04 (CST) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of disputed penalty of Rs.12,93,551/- pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent for the year 2003-04 (CST), and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Certiorari, quashing the order made by the second respondent in Stay Petition No. 2/2008-2009 (CTR) dated 8.5.2008, refusing to stay collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.12,93,551/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 (CST), as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the law and to consequently restrain the first respondent from taking coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty, pending appeal before the second respondent for the year 2003-2004, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a company dealing in poultry business and has breeders, broilers, feed and hatchery units and it is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Chittoor-II Circle under the provisions of A.P.G.S.T. Act and C.S.T Act. While so, the petitioner purchased certain items against ‘C’ form during the assessment year 2003-2004, worth Rs.1,11,97,150/-. The business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad, based on whose report, the first respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted reply on 18.3.2008. However, the first respondent, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, has issued order dated 31.3.2008 levying the penalty under Sec. 10-A of the CST Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before the second respondent and also filed an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed penalty amount. However, the second respondent refused to grant stay of the collection of the disputed amount, by order dated 8.5.2008. Pursuant to the said refusal, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice demanding payment of the disputed penalty and is likely to take coercive steps for recovery thereof. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 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 pending appeal, the issuance of impugned notice demanding to pay the penalty is contrary to law. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending Appeal, 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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount, pending Appeal. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. JUNE 24, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}