IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12093 of 2009 Between: M/s. Mahi Motors, H.No. 4-47/2, Bellampally Road, Mancherial - 504 208. Adilabad District, Rep by its Managing Partner, Mr. Ch. Ramesh Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, Warangal. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Mancherial Circle, Adilabad District. .....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 issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application vide proceedings dated 27-4-2009 in Appeal No. D/63/08-09 as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and rule of law and consequently set aside the same as null and void and grant stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs. 66,08,280/- for the year 2004-2005, pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned standing counsel Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 27-04-2009 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal – respondent No.1, whereby its prayer for stay of recovery of the amount of tax during the pendency of the appeal has been rejected. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order, whereby the application for stay has been rejected, is not a speaking order as no reason for rejection of the application has been stated. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the authority has referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while rejecting the application and, therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we find that the authority has only reproduced extracts of two judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court without referring to the facts of the case, which was before the authority. In our opinion, the contentions raised by the petitioner and the facts pertaining to the case ought to have been referred to and thereafter only, the authority should have come to a particular conclusion after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the fact that the reasons for rejection of the application have not been stated and the contentions raised before the authority have not been referred to, we quash the impugned order. It would be open to respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and after considering the contentions which have been raised by the petitioner at the time of hearing. At the time of hearing of this petition, the learned advocates have agreed that respondent No.1 would hear the application afresh on 29-06-2009 at 11.00 AM. The learned advocate for the petitioner has waived notice of hearing as he would give intimation of this fact to the petitioner. He has also assured this Court that the representative of the petitioner shall not pray for time and shall proceed with the hearing. Till the hearing is concluded and order passed by the authority is communicated to the petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount in question. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 22nd June, 2009 ks