IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25349 of 2008 Between: M/s. Eicher Limited Rep. by its Division General Manager (Fin. & HR.), D-313, Minerva Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer General Bazar 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 Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction set aside the order of the 3rd Respondent in LV(1)/671/2008, dated 3-10-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.24,30,982/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.28,00,822/- for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST), pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25349 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order of the 3rd Respondent in LV(1)/671/2008, dated 3-10-2008 as illegal, and arbitrary and consequently to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.24,30,982/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.28,00,822/- for the assessment year 2004-05, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent levying tax at 4% viz., Rs.28,00,822/-on disputed turnover of Rs.7,00,20,544/-, it has preferred an appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that at the time of filing the appeal, it has paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and for the balance amount, a stay application was filed before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent refused to grant stay, against which, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent also refused to grant stay, pursuant to which, steps are being taken for collection of the disputed tax and in such course, a notice has also been issued. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned 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 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and that taking advantage of the orders passed by respondents 2 & 3 refusing to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax pending the appeal before the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued a notice demanding the balance disputed tax and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and if the entire 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 balance disputed tax, 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 six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount already 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 Ghulam Mohammed __________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy Date: 19th November, 2008 Note: Issue CC in three days (BO) Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25349 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 19/11/2008