IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 5077 of 2008 Between: M/s.Dekars Enterprises,(now known as Dekars Techno Engineering) Ashok nagar, Hyderabad rep.by its proprietor Mr.Srirang Deglurkar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial TAxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2 The Commercial TAx officer, Ashok Nagar Circle Hyderabad 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Divison, 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 writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application by proceedings dated 22.1.2008 in CCTs.Ref.No.LV)(1)/947/2007 as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed demand of RS.1,90,617/- for the assessment year 2002-03 pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following ORDER : (Per BPR.J.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. At their request, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, was assessed for the assessment year 2002-2003 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar Circle, Hyderabad. However, the said assessment was subjected to revision by the second respondent and levied tax of Rs. 1,90, 617/- in addition to the tax already levied by the primary authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the third respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.1,90, 617/-. However, the third respondent rejected the stay application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred revision before the first respondent and sought stay of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. However, the first respondent also declined to grant stay. Assailing the same, the petitioner approached this Court. It is stated that pursuant to the demand of the second respondent, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.95,309/- towards disputed tax. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, we dispose of the Writ Petition directing the third respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the appeal filed bythe petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the appeal, there shall be interim stay of collection of disputed tax, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing half of the demand made in the order dated 20-4-2007, on or before 31-3-2008. If the petitioner paid any tax already pursuant to the assessment order for the year 2002-2003, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU DATED, 11TH MARCH, 2008. Note: CC by tomorrow (BO) .MSNR.