IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETH 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 : 23201 of 2006 Between: M/s.Sri Sai Constructions, K.Thimmapuram village Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District AP,. rep. by its partner Sri K.Prabhakar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal) II floor, CT Building MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kadapa Division, Kadapa AP 3 CTO -II Proddutur, kadapa District .....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 order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus by declaring the action of the First respondent in rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner by his order in CCT`s Ref.No.LIII(3)/805/2006 dated 28.10.2006 as illegal and consequently to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.2,98,725-00 for the Assessment Year 2002-03 APGST pending disposal of the Appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KAUNDINYA, 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 : 23201 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay petition by order in CCT’s Ref. No.LIII (3)/805/2006, dated 28.10.2006 as illegal and consequently, to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.2,98,725/- for the assessment year 2002-2003 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the revised assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent withdrawing the exemption granted by the assessing authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal is pending. The petitioner filed a stay petition before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. But the 1st respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the stay petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 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 deposited 25% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal is pending and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the proceedings is not entertained and if the disputed tax is recovered during the pendency of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. It is pertinent to note that on 8.11.2006, while admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay as sought for in WPMP No.29549 of 2006. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the interim stay granted by this Court is still subsisting, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein stay can be continued till the disposal of the appeal, but subject to imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, the interim stay granted by this Court on 8.11.2006 shall continue till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. On compliance of the above condition, the appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 9th June, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23201 of 2006 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 09.06.2008