IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2446 of 2009 Between: M/s India Gypsum Limited, P.M.HOuse Building, F-4, # 5-9-211/2, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad, Rep by its Regional Manager, Sri K.V.Rama Gopal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Nampally Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), 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 to issue a Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.7,56,122/- arising in purusnace of the stay rejectin orders passed by the third respondent dated 23.01.2009 passed in CCT's RefNo.LV(1)/04/2009 for the assessment year 1998-99 (APGST) pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) An application for stay pending appeal had been filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderbad. The said application has been rejected by an order dated 23-1-2009, which has been challenged in this petition. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner. Upon hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the order of assessment, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner did not bother to appear before the appellate authority to make out its case and for that reason, the appeal was dismissed and, therefore, the revision application was filed by the petitioner. The application for stay pending the revision has been also rejected and the said order has been challenged. Upon perusal of the reasons recorded by the revisional authority, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the revisional authority has passed the order for unjustifiable reasons. In view of the fact that the matter is yet to be examined on merits, without discussing the merits of the case, we are of the view that the order passed by the revisional authority on the stay application is, prima facie, just and proper and, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order at this stage. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 11th February, 2009. GRR