THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2118 of 2008 Date: 6th February, 2008 Between : M/s. Sree Venkateswara Agro Products, West Godavari District. …..Petitioner And The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), Hyderabad and others. …..Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2118 of 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 20.11.2007 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 1,00,629/- for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, pending disposal of the appeal filed by him before the 1st respondent. The petitioner who is a manufacturer of fish feed and prawn feed is an assessee on the rolls of the third respondent. While so, the third respondent passed an assessment order on 22.3.2003 levying tax of Rs. 1,00,629/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vijayawada, the second respondent herein. The 2nd respondent, through order dated 17.10.2003 while confirming the levy of tax of Rs. 12,34,895/- on the sale of prawn feed, remanded the matter to the assessing authority so far as levy of tax of Rs. 3,35,591-50 on prawn waste is concerned. Questioning the same, petitioner again filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, (CT), Legal, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking stay of collection of balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. But, the 1st respondent rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent is pending before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is not justified in rejecting the stay application. It is further contended that by virtue of the rejection of stay application, the 2nd respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty amount and interest. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 6th February, 2008 ______________ G. ROHINI, ,J Note: Furnish c.c. in two days B/o pnb