IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH 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 : 13758 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Parvathi Parameswar Cables, K.M.Valasa, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.K.Surapunaidu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Rajam Circle, Srikakulam District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam. .....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 Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction restraining the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed interest of Rs.1,45,801/- for the assessment year 1996-97 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in T.A.No.291 of 2005, and pass such other order or orders. 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 mandamus, restraining the first respondent from taking coercive steps for recovery of the disputed interest of Rs.1,45,801/- for the assessment year 1996-97 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in TA No. 291 of 2005, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of AAA Conductor and A.B. Cables and is a dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and C.S.T. Act. The petitioner was granted incentive of Sales Tax deferment under GO Ms. No. 108 dated 20.5.1996 for a period of five years from 27.7.1994. The total tax due for the year 1996- 97 is Rs.6,07,728/- which the petitioner had paid in instalments, but the first respondent levied penal interest to the tune of Rs.1,45,801/-, which was appeal against by the petitioner before the second respondent, who dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal in TA No. 291 of 2005 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, but in the meanwhile, since the stay petition could not be taken up, the first respondent insisted for payment of the disputed interest. 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, insistence to pay the disputed amount of interest, by the first respondent, 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 amount demanded towards interest. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the demanded amount of interest, within a period of six weeks from today 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 30, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}