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 : 3802 of 2008 Between: M/s. Pioneer Torsteel Mills Private Limited, 1-4-880/A, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500 040, rep. by its Executive Director, Mr. Mohd. Gulam Murtuza. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhinagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 3rd Respondent in CCT's Ref. No.LV(1)/35/2007, dated 22.01.2008 refusing to grant stay pending disposal of the appeal as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for collection of disputed demand of Rs.1,79,492/- for the assessment year 2003-04 under the APGST Act pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent, and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.HARI CHARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:3802 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the stay application by proceedings, dated 22.1.2008 in CCT.Ref.No.LV(1)/35/2007 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to grant stay of collection of disputed tax for the assessment year 2002- 03. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with a stay application and the 2nd respondent has refused to grant stay of collection of the disputed demand. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent by an order dated 22.1.2008, refused to grant stay. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material available on record. At this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the proceedings is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax in question is effected during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal 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 imposition of certain conditions so as to infer the bonafides of the petitioner in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of disputed tax in question till the disposal of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six (6) 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 SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:3802 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 25/02/2008