IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24780 of 2008 Between: M/s. Esso Lifts, 204, Paiga Plaza, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad 500 029, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Thampan Verghese. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Musheerabad Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad 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 a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 2nd Respondent in S/55/08-09, dated 14-7-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently, restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs. 2,19,949/- for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents : SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24780 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 14-7-2008 and seeking a direction to the 1st respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.2,19,949/- for the assessment year 2004-05 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent, an appeal has been ﬁled before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. Along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax was also ﬁled. But the 2nd respondent refused to grant stay. Taking advantage of the same, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed tax. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and at this juncture, if the stay is not granted and if the entire disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel it a ﬁt case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 12th November, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24780 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 12/11/2008