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 : 23132 of 2008 Between: M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Company Limited, 8th Floor, Saptagiri Towers, Begumpet, Secunderabad, represented by its Senior Manager - Accounts, A.K.Maiti. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Manager, State Bank of India, Khairatabad, 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 a Writ or Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.35,51,122/- arising in pursuance of the Assessment Value Added Tax in Form 305, dated 27.08.2008 passed by the ﬁrst respondent to pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL 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 : 23132 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.35,51,122/-. It is the case of the petitioner that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal and a stay petition have been ﬁled before the 2nd respondent and the same are pending. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent issued a garnishee notice to the bankers of the petitioner. 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 ﬁled an appeal and a stay petition before the 2nd respondent and the same are pending and meanwhile, the 1st respondent issued the garnishee notice 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 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 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 Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 24th October, 2008 Nn/Gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:23132 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 24/10/2008