IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7306 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Prathul Automobiles Private Limited, 6-3-899/1, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Director Sri B.S. Neelakanta ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(LTU) Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the notice dated 20.3.2010 issued by the first respondent insisting for payment of the penalty for November, 2009 pending Appeal and revision before the second and third respondents as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and restrain the first respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty of Rs.3,73,425/- under APVAT Act, 2005, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of trading two wheeler vehicles and is a registered dealer on the rolls of first respondent under APVAT Act. On the allegation of belated payment of monthly tax for the month of November, 2009, penalty of Rs.3,73,425/- had been imposed by proceedings dated 1.2.2010 in Form No. 203, rejecting the explanation of the petitioner submitted to the show cause notice dated 1.1.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent along with stay petition. The stay petition was rejected by an order dated 3.3.2010. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed revision before the third respondent, which is pending. While the matters stood thus, the first respondent issued notice dated 20.3.2010 calling for payment of the penalty. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay, which was assailed before the third respondent in revision, which is pending. It is further submitted that pending appeal and revision before the second and third respondents, the issuance of notice by the first respondent calling for payment of the disputed penalty amount is illegal. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of four weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amount of penalty. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 06, 2010 MAS