IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18468 of 2008 Between: M/s. Asian Paints (India) Limited, Jaya Nagar, R.T.C. Colony, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Area Manager Mr. Aravind Iyer. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta 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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the stay application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.2,09,79,822/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act through the impugned proceedings dated 18-07- 2008 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and to set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.32,48,465/- from out of the total disputed tax of Rs.2,09,79,822/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act in pursuance of the urgent arrear notice Dt.2-8- 2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18468 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the stay application vide order, dated 18.7.2008, as illegal and arbitrary and to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-05, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax was ﬁled. But the same was dismissed by the 2nd respondent, vide order impugned herein. Now, the steps are being taken by the 1st respondent to collect the disputed tax and in such course, a notice has also been issued to the petitioner. 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 petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 75% of the disputed tax and at this stage, the action of the respondents in rejecting the stay and issuing the notice, is very arbitrary and illegal, and in these circumstances, 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 the recovery of the balance disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-05, 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 P.V. Sanjay Kumar Date: 27th August, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18468 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 27/08/2008