IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7221 of 2008 Between: M/s. Kesoram Cements (A Division of Kesoram Industries Limited) Basant Nagar, Karimnagar District, A.P. Rep. by Mr.N. Hariharan, General Manager (Accounts.) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Commissioenr (CT) Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Warangal. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax of Rs. 5,14,188/- for the tax period 2007-2008 through the impugned urgent notice dt. 29-3-2008 and initiating coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax as illegal, arbitrary high handed and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed demands pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Parkash Rao): Heard Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-company and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, and at their request, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner-company seeks Writ of Mandamus by granting stay of orders of the 2nd respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal, dated 25-03-2008, whereby the applications, seeking stay of recovery of the disputed demands for the periods 2006-07 and 2007-08, respectively, were dismissed pending substantive appeals. The main grievance of the petitioner is that having regard to the very questions involved in the main appeals, the appellate Tribunal has not granted stay. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, and especially in view of the main appeals are still pending on the file of the 2nd respondent, where all such questions have to be gone into the merits of the case, we are refrained to go into any other contentions urged on both sides and it will be suffice in the interest of justice to grant stay pending disposal of the appeals. 4. Therefore, there shall be stay of collection of disputed tax for the period 2006-07, respectively, pending disposal of the appeal subject to condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount for the period 2006-07, within a period of six weeks from today. The amount, if any already paid towards the disputed tax, for the period 2006-07, shall be given credit to while computing the above mentioned 25% of the disputed tax. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the appeal on merits, in accordance with law. 5. With the aforementioned direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASHRAO ________________________ April 02, 2008 JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU Kvr