IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 97 of 2009 Between: M/s.Hindustan Unilever Limited, Sy.No.129/2, Kandlakoya village,Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District rep.by its Assistant manager-Legal, Mr.G.S.Srinivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer,Hydernagar circle Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(LTU) Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural 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 mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed penalty of Rs.27,02,725/.- and contemplating to take any coercive steps for collection of the balance disputed penalty of Rs.24,02,725/- for the assessment year 1984-85 as illegal, arbitrary, and restrain the respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed penalty of Rs.24,02,725/- pending disposal of the TAx Revision Case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents : SPL.SC FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per DSRV, J ) The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, Hydernagar Circle, Hyderabad under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’). He was engaged in business of marketing of consumer goods such as, cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, ice creams, tea, coffee. As against the assessment proceedings dated 28.12.1998 issued by the first respondent treating the petitioner as first purchaser in the State and levied tax on him, he preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent- Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who, by an order dated 24.10.1992 set aside the order of the assessing authority and remanded the matter to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal vide T.A.Nos.766 and 767 of 1993 and the Tribunal by its order dated 18.03.1996 upheld the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in remanding the matter for purpose of deciding whether the purchases are made in the course of export or not. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a Tax Revision Case on the file of this Court. It is not known whether the said Tax Revision Case as filed is numbered or not. However, since the case of the petitioner is that there is no provision for grant of stay in the Tax Revision Case, he has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction seeking stay of recovery of the balance of Rs.24,07,725/- as per the notice dated 05.12.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting stay, pending disposal of Appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal subject to condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax amount, within a period of four weeks from today, after giving credit to the amounts, if any, paid towards the tax. No costs. ______________ D.S.R.VARMA, J _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J Date:07.01.2009 sj