IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10517 of 2009 Between: M/s. Saravanabhava Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Mr. G. Murali, H.No.231, Gayatri Nagar, Behind Maitrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner And 1. Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting to grant stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs.65,61,354/- for the period April, 2005 to March, 2007 vide proceedings dated 14-05-2009, as arbitrary, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the petitioner's case and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs.65,61,354/- for the period April, 2005 to March, 2007, pending disposal of Appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha for Sri M.V. Pavan Kumar Counsel for the respondents : Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Rule. The learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes waives service of rule. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 14th May, 2009 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the stay application filed by the petitioner – assessee has been rejected. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the impugned order to show that no reason for rejecting the application for stay has been incorporated. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we could not find any justifiable reason for which the stay application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. In our opinion, while passing any order on the application, the authority passing the order must give reasons supporting the final conclusion drawn by him. In the absence of any reason given in the impugned order, we are unable to know as to why the stay application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. For the afore-stated short reason, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 14th May, 2009 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Needless to say that it would be open to respondent No.2 to hear the petitioner again so as to come to a final conclusion after recording reasons in the order that might be passed by him. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 15th June, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. To 1. Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad. 2. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3. Two copies to the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4. Two C.D. copies. ARS