IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20483 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sree Vani Printers Private Limited,1-2-288/23/1 Domalguda, Hyderabad, rep.by its Manager,Mr.Neeraj Mathur ..... 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 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing order of the 3rd respondent in CCTs Ref.No.LV(1)/412/2008 dated 27.6.2008 for the year 1999-2000 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of disputed tax of Rs.4,10,177/- for the assessment year 1999-2000(APGST) pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents.: SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20483 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order, dated 27.6.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent in CCT’s Ref.No.LV(1)/412/2008 for the year 1999-2000, and seeking a direction to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that against the order dated 29.1.2008 passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. Along with the appeal, a stay application was ﬁled, but the 2nd respondent refused to grant stay. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled a revision petition before the 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent also refused to grant stay. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 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 at this juncture, if the 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 for the assessment year in question, 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: 19th September, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20483 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 19/09/2008