IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16312 of 2008 Between: M/s. Saravan Bhava Constructions Private Limited, Keshavnagar, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G. Murali ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 2 Commercial Tax Officer, Panjagutta 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application by proceedings dated 11.7.2008 is arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and also Rule of law and consequently pray the Hon'ble Court to kindly grant stay of collection of disputed demand of Rs. 21,33,330/- pursuant to the stay rejection proceedings of the 1st respondent dt. 11-7-2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents No.: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KAUNDINYA, SPL. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16312 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application vide proceedings dated 11.7.2008, as arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and consequently to grant stay of collection of the disputed demand of Rs.21,33,330/-, pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the assessment proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal as well as a stay petition before the 1st respondent. But, the 1st respondent rejected the stay application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader 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 1st respondent challenging the assessment proceedings of the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid Rs.5 Lakhs and at this juncture, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the entire disputed demand is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal before the 1st 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 1st 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 demand, pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed demand, 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: 29th July, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:16312 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29/07/2008