IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3833 of 2008 Between: M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd, 1st Floor Decan Chrmbers Somajiguda Hyderabad, Rep.by its Manager Taxation Sri B.V.D Nagarjuna Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad 2 Assistant Commissioner(CT) Enforcement Wing,Hyderabad 3 Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT) Secunderabad Division,Hyderabad 4 Joint Commissioner(CT) Legal 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 order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.30,69,906/- for the assessment year 2005-06 (APVAT) arising in pursuance of the stay rejection of the third respondent dt.29- 01-2008 read with the notice dt.15-02-2008 issued by the second respondent, pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI K. RAJI REDDY (SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX) The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:3833 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.30,69,906/- for the assessment year 2005-06 pursuant to the rejection of stay by the 3rd respondent dated 29.1.2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that against the assessment proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 31.08.2007 for the tax period from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, an appeal was preferred before the 3rd respondent. But the said appeal was dismissed. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is further contended that while the appeal was pending with the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has levied penalty by his proceedings dated 13.11.2007, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with a stay petition before the 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent dismissed the stay petition. Hence, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the 4th respondent. While so, the 1st respondent issued notice, dated 15.2.2008 to the petitioner demanding it to deposit the penalty amount. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred 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 against the assessment proceedings for the period in question, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal and that against the proceedings of the 2nd respondent levying the penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and that against the rejection of stay by the 3rd respondent, a revision has been preferred before the 4th respondent and at this juncture, the 1st respondent is not justified in issuing the notice dated 15.2.2008. It is further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the relief of stay is not entertained 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 3rd respondent as to the penalty in question, 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 penalty pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, on or before 31st March, 2008. 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 G. Rohini Date: 25th February, 2008 Gurc. HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:3833 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 25/02/2008