IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14170 of 2008 Between: M/s. Union Roadways Limited, KOLKATA, having its Regd. Office at Hyderabad, rep., by its Dy. General Manager. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Administrative Officer, Integrated Check Post, Naraharipet,Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 5 The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Integrated Check Post, Naraharipet, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. .....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, Order or Direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Notice GC No. 0363743/2006-2007, dated 06.05.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, untenable and without jurisdiction and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of the appeal No. 49/2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.V.SUBRAMANYA NARASU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14170 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Notice GC No. 0363743/2006-2007, dated 06.05.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, untenable and without jurisdiction and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of the appeal No. 49/2007. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent checked the lorry and goods on 5.6.2006 and issued seizure order- cum-confiscation show cause notice, for which, the petitioner filed objections and produced all relevant documents, but however, the 5th respondent passed confiscation order on 29.6.2006, against which, an appeal was preferred before the 3rd respondent. But the said appeal was also ended in dismissal. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. While so, the 4th respondent issued notice dated 6.5.2008 proposing to conduct auction of the confiscated goods. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the goods have been confiscated on 5.6.2006 and in this regard, the appeal filed before the 3rd respondent was dismissed and the petitioner preferred further appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and in the meantime, the 4th respondent, having knowledge of pendency of the appeal, issued the impugned notice proposing to conduct auction in respect of the confiscated goods. It is further contended that if the auction is allowed to be conducted, the petitioner would be subjected to irreparable loss and that the petitioner is ready to furnish the bank guarantee to the value of the goods and therefore, goods may be directed to be released to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein the confiscated goods can be released, but subject to imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, the goods in question shall be released to the petitioner subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee to the worth of goods viz., Rs.2,87,823/-, within a period of four weeks from today. It is needless to observe that in default to furnish the bank guarantee as stipulated above, the authorities are at liberty to proceed with the proposed auction. It is made clear that such bank guarantee shall be subject to the result of the appeal. It is also made clear that the above order does not preclude the authorities from proceeding with the appeal. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 3rd July, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:14170 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 03/07/2008