IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3832 of 2008 Between: M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, 1st floor, Deccan Chambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager - Taxation Sri B.V.D. Nagaraj Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner (CT) Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad. 3 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 4 Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal 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 or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.2,93,92,698/- for the assessment year 2006-07 (APVAT) arising in pursuance of the Appeal Order of the third respondent dated 18.02.2008 passed in Appeal No.A/60/07-08 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal or to pass such further or other orders as may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.K.RAJI REDDY(SPL.SC FOR CT) The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:3832 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.2,93,92,698/- for the assessment year 2006-07 pursuant to the order of the 3rd respondent dated 18.2.2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 31.8.2007, an appeal had been preferred before the 3rd respondent. But the said appeal was dismissed. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and a revision petition before the 4th respondent. While so, taking advantage of the orders of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent is threatening to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 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 petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and a revision before the 4th respondent and at this juncture, the 1st respondent is trying to take coercive steps and in these circumstances, if the relief of stay is not entertained and if the disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal before Tribunal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, 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 Tribunal 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 G. Rohini Date: 25th February, 2008 Gurc. HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:3832 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 25/02/2008