IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5060 of 2009 Between: M/s. Divyasree Holdings (P) Limited, Plot No.19, 8-2-684/3/K/19, Kaushik Society, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, represented by its Assistant Manager (Finance) Sri K.V. Muthuraja. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Madhapur Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 4 The Manager, Karnataka Bank Limited, Banjara Hills Branch, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. 5 M/s. Google Online India (P) Limited, Jayabheri Silicon Towers, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 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 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.79,22,622/- arising in pursuance of the Assessment of Value Added Tax in Form VAT 305, dated 18.10.2008 passed by the second Respondent in Case No.29/AC(VMU)-I/2008-09, for the assessment period 01.08.2005 to 31.3.2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the third respondent or to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5060 OF 2009 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 79,22,622/- in pursuance of the assessment notice dated 18.10.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent in Case No. 29/AC(VMU)/1/2008- 09 for the assessment period from 1.8.2005 to 31.3.2008, pending disposal of the appeal filed by it before the third respondent. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. While so, the second respondent passed an assessment order on 18.10.2004 levying tax of Rs. 79,22,622/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent on 29.12.2008. It also paid 12.5% of the difference of tax and also filed an application for stay of the collection of the disputed tax. But, the stay application has been rejected by the third respondent. However, it appears, after the rejection of the stay application, the first respondent seemed to have issued a garnishee notice on 27.1.2009 to the 4th respondent and also issued FORM Vat 206, dated 9.3.2009 to the fifth respondent seeking recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 70,43,806/-. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the assessing authority is pending before the third respondent, the third respondent has rejected the stay application. It is further contended that by virtue of the rejection of stay application, the 1st respondent issued the garnishee notices contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal subject to deposit of certain amount. Therefore, we quash the impugned garnishee notices dated 27.1.2009 and 9.3.2009 and direct the petitioner to pay 50% of the disputed tax liability within a period of eight weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 13th March, 2009 _________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Note: Operative portion of the order to be communicate by wire at party’s costs. B/o pnb