IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH 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 : 12304 of 2008 Between: M/s.Parker Markwel Industries Private Ltd (Formely Markwel House Industries P.Ltd) Patancheru 502319 Medak District Rep.by its Manager Accounts Mr.B.S.B Balaji ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner(CT) Int., LTU Nizamabad Division Nizamabad District 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT) Secunderabad Division 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 a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 2nd respondent dt.10-8-2007 (received by the petitioner on 5-6-2008) refusing to grant stay of collection of balance disputed tax of Rs.9,47,576/- for the assessment year 2003-04 under the CST act pending disposal of the appeal as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of balance disputed tax of Rs.10,82,944/- in pursuance of the notice dt.30-5-2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 2003-04(CST). Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents.: SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12304 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order, dated 10.8.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent refusing to grant stay of collection of the balance disputed tax and consequently, to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-04 and to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax in pursuance of the notice dated 30.5.2008, pending disposal of the appeal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and subsequently, an application seeking stay of collection of the balance disputed tax was filed, but the 2nd respondent dismissed the said application and in pursuance of the order of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued a notice demanding payment of the balance disputed tax. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending disposal and that at the time of filing the appeal, the petitioner has paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the collection of the balance disputed tax is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax in question is effected during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent in pursuance of the notice dated 30.5.2008, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal 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 imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-04, till the disposal of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six (6) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount, if any already paid, 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: 17th June, 2008 nn THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:12304 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 17/06/2008