IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13209 of 2009 Between: M/s. My Home Industries Ltd., Formerly Known as (My Home Cement Industries Ltd.,) 4th Floor, "My Home Jupally" Greenlands, Hyderabad - 500 016, Rep. by its Director Mr. S. Sambashiva Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Commissioner (CT), LTU, (I/c), Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Complex, Nampally, 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the balance disputed tax of Rs.10,65,139/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs.22,01,727/- for the assessment year 2005-2006 under CST Act through the impugned notice Dt.09-6-2009 and contemplating to take coercive steps even during the pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble STAT as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and set aside the same and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.10,65,139/- from out of the total disputed tax of Rs.22,01,727/- for the assessment year 2005-2006 under the CST Act pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR CMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Notice is waived by Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner company has been aggrieved by notice dt.9.6.2009 whereby it has been called upon to pay the amount of tax determined by the assessing officer within seven days from the date of notice. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) and during the pendency of the said appeal, respondent authorities should not have issued the impugned notice. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that at an earlier point of time, petitioner had filed an appeal against the assessment order before the second respondent and at that time, as the petitioner had not been granted stay, it filed W.P. No.1818 of 2009 and after hearing the concerned Advocates, this Court had granted some protection to the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to pay only 50% of the amount of tax payable by the petitioner and this Court had also recorded the reasons for which the aforestated protection was granted to the petitioner. It has been further submitted that in view of the above fact, the protection granted to the petitioner should be continued till the appeal filed by the petitioner before the STAT is finally disposed of. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel Sri Krishna Koundinya that the petitioner has already failed in an appeal before respondent No.2. This shows that the petitioner is not having a prima facie case and therefore the petitioner must pay the amount of tax payable by it. We have heard the learned Advocates and looked into the facts of the case for the immediate purpose of deciding whether any further protection should be granted to the petitioner. We find that there are certain arguable points involved in the appeal, which is pending before the STAT. Looking to the said fact, we feel that some protection is required to be given to the petitioner. Looking to the facts of the case, we direct that the petitioner shall pay sixty per cent (60%) of the amount of tax payable by it within four weeks from today. The amount of tax already paid shall be given credit to. At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner has made a request that the STAT be directed to dispose of the appeal pending before it at an early date. We do not know the pendency before the Tribunal and therefore we cannot not give such a direction. But, it would be open to the petitioner to submit an application to the STAT so that its appeal can be heard at an early date. Learned Standing Counsel Sri Krishna Koundinya has submitted that the respondent authorities would not have any objection if the STAT gives priority to the appeal pending before it. We are sure that if an application is filed for early hearing of the appeal by the petitioner, after considering the facts of the case, the STAT shall pass appropriate orders. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as partly allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 03.7.2009 bnr Note: C.C. by 07.7.2009. (B.O) bnr