THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.17438 of 2009 Dated: 08-09-2009 Between: M/s Sneha Paper Products rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Boddu Venkata Krishna Rao …Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, Dwarakanagar Circle, Visakhapatnam and others …Respondents. Order: (Per RR, J) Aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam in TMP No. 105 of 2009 in T.A.No. 126 of 2009, dated 13-5-2009, whereby the petitioner’s request for stay of recovery of penalty was rejected, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is a Proprietary concern carrying on business in manufacture and sale of exercise note books and is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. For the assessment year 2000-01 under the APGST Act, the assessment order was passed on 31-3-2003 enhancing the taxable turnover by Rs.6,22,557/-. The 1st respondent, invoking his powers under Section 14 (8) of the APGST Act, 1957, levied penalty at three times of the assessed tax. Challenging both the assessment order and the order of penalty passed by the 1st respondent on 31-3-2003, the petitioner preferred two separate appeals before the 2nd respondent who, by order dated 27-7-2004, allowed the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent issued notice dated 26- 4-2008 proposing to revise the order of the 2nd respondent dated 27-7- 2004 and the consequential orders passed by the 1st respondent on 20-8-2004. The petitioner claims to have filed detailed objections by way of a representation dated 10-7-2008. The 3rd respondent however confirmed the proposed revision by his proceedings dated 18-7-2008. The petitioner contends that the said order of revision was received by the CTO on 31-1-2009 and was, in turn, served on them only on 9-2-2009. Among the various grounds, raised before the Tribunal, are that the assessment order is ante-dated to bring it within the period of limitation, that the period of limitation expired on 6-8-2008 and the very fact that the orders of the 3rd respondent was served on the CTO on 31-1-2009 and, in turn, on the petitioner on 9-2-2009, is proof that the said order was ante- dated to bring it within the period of limitation. The petitioner also contends that the 1st respondent is precluded from passing an order of penalty simultaneously with the order of assessment. Sri V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal in support of his submission that none of the contentions have been dealt with by the Tribunal, in the impugned order. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that none of the contentions, though raised in the grounds of appeal, have been adverted to. The impugned order is bereft of reasons and is, accordingly, set aside. The petitioner has an arguable case before the Tribunal both with regards limitation and on a simultaneous order of assessment and penalty being passed. As these are all matters required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal, and as it is stated that the petitioner has already paid the entire tax, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. There shall be a direction accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8th September, 2009. GRR