IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23233 of 2008 Between: M/s Startek Electricals Pvt Ltd., Plot No.A-24, Nacharam, Hyderabad - 500 076, Rep by its Managing Director, Mr. Imran Suleman Ali. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) (Legal), O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Nacharam Circle, 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 direction more particularly in the anture of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned Proceedings order No.LIII (4)/617/2008, dated 05-09-2008 issued by the 1st respodnent, as illegal unjustiﬁed and contrary to the provisions of law in the facts and circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23233 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order, dated 5.9.2008 issued by the 1 st respondent as illegal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the assessment order passed by the 3rd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and along with the said appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax was ﬁled, but the said application was rejected on 24.7.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a stay petition before the 1st respondent for stay of collection of the disputed tax and the same was also dismissed on 5.9.2008. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed 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 preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that at the time ﬁling the appeal, the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and in these circumstances, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal before 2nd respondent 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 recovery of the disputed tax 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 eight 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 Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 24th October, 2008 Note: Wire at party’s cost (BO) Gurc/nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:23233 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 24/10/2008