IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10565 of 2008 Between: M/s. Greenfiled Enterprises, Shop No. 53, Vijaya Shopping Complex, Behind RTC Bus Stand, Kurnool, Rep by its Proprietor Mr. A. Srinivasa Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Kurnool. 2 Commercial Tax Officer-I, Kurnool. .....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 an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the appeal by proceedings in Sl.No. 495/2004-05, dated 06-9-2005, served on the office of the 2nd respondent on 20-9-2007 and in turn it was served on the petitioner, dated 18-2-2006 and 10-4- 2006 as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the act and set aside the same as null and void and consequently direct the 1st respondent to receive the appeal on record as the petitioner has already been complied with the payment of 12.5 % of the disputed tax as contemplated under the provisions of the act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of the first respondent in rejecting the appeal by proceedings in Sl. No. 495/2004-05 dated 6.9.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and to consequently direct the first respondent to receive the appeal on record, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business in pesticides and a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent herein under A.P.G.S.T Act. The second respondent, has completed the assessment for the year 2001-2002 on 24.1.2005 without granting opportunity of being heard observing that the petitioner did not file objections. The said order was appealed by the petitioner before the first respondent, who has issued Check Notes to the petitioner, dated 13.6.2005 directing to comply the same. The petitioner, pursuant thereto, clarified the issue by his letter, dated 18.2.2006 and also made payment at 12.5%. The petitioner also submitted another letter, dated 10.4.2006, requesting for admission of the appeal, but by proceedings dated 6.9.2005, the appeal was rejected by the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent and though the petitioner has submitted representations from time to time and also paid a sum of Rs.91,585/-, the action of the first respondent in rejecting the appeal, is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that pursuant to the said rejection of appeal, the respondents are contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the appeal, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission directing the respondent No.1 to entertain the appeal subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the tax amount due, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. JUNE 10, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // \SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}