IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH 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 : 11839 of 2008 Between: M/s Sainath Constructions, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Rep by its Managing Director Sri K. Premsagar Rao, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), CCT's Office, II Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, CCT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Ameerpet, 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 or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 15-4- 2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.RV/5 & 6/2008-09 (Ex.P1) as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary of the facts and Law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11839 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 15.4.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.RV/5 & 6/2008-09 rejecting the stay of collection of the penalty, as illegal and arbitrary. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the penalty imposed by the 3rd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and along with the said appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the penalty was filed but the 2nd respondent rejected the stay application. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel 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 penalty imposed by the 3rd respondent and the said appeal is pending and at this juncture, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the penalty 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 penalty in question pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty in question, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the penalty 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: 11th June, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:11839 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 11/06/2008