IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16775 of 2008 Between: M/s. L.G. Electronics India Ltd., Pulla Reddy House, Kharkana Secunderabad, rep. by its Brach Accountant Sri. Atul Chaturvedi, S/o. Amrish Kumar Chaturvedi. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) (FAC), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally St.Road, Opp.Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU), Abids Division, Nampally, 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 an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 06.06.008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.NO. LV(1) / 374/2008 for the tax period 2005-06 as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPL. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16775 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the order dated 06.06.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No. LV(1) / 374/2008 for the tax period 2005-06, as illegal and unjustified. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the order passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal as well as a stay petition before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent rejected the stay petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a stay petition before the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent also rejected the stay petition. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special 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 challenging the order of the 3rd respondent and the same is pending and at this juncture, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the entire disputed tax and interest is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent 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 disputed tax and interest for the period 2005-06, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax and 25% of the interest in question, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount 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 T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 4th August, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:16775 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 04.08.2008