IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10777 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Saravanabhava Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 8-3-1109/3, Flatg No. 444, Opp: Sri Saraswathi Vidya Mandhir, Vishnulekha Plaza, Keshava Nagar, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Managing Director Sri G.Murali ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the order dated 22.09.2009 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed penalty of Rs.65,61,354/- for the period April 2005 to March, 2007 under AP VAT Act pending Appeal before the second respondents as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and restrain respondents from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty, the present writ petition is filed The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of works contracts and is a registered dealer on the rolls of first respondent under APVAT Act. The first respondent issued a notice dated 18.6.2008 proposing to levy penalty to the tune of Rs.65,61,354/ -for the period from April, 2005 to March, 2007, to which the petitioner filed objections. But, however, without adverting to the same, the first respondent by an order dated 4.3.2009 confirmed the penalty. Aggrieved by same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent along with a stay petition. The second respondent, dismissed the stay petition by an order dated 14.5.2009. The petitioner, challenging the same, filed WP No. 10517 of 2009 and this court by an order dated 15.6.2009 remanded the matter back. The second respondent by an order dated 28.7.2009, rejected the stay application brushing aside the contentions raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner preferred a revision before the third respondent, which was also rejected by the order impugned herein. 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 though several contentions were raised before the second and third respondents, they have refused to grant stay. It is further submitted that taking advantage of the rejection of stay, the first respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for the recovery of disputed penalty amount. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted 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 four weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amount of penalty. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 30, 2010 MAS