THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13060 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.RAO) The petitioner, a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (A.P.VAT Act), is before this Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate coercive action for recovery of penalty of Rs.15,10,253/- pursuant to order of the 1st respondent dated 16.10.2007. For the period from April 2006 to March 2007, assessment was completed. Thereafter the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 53(1)(ii) of the A.P. VAT Act for levying penalty on the ground that there was under-declaration. The petitioner raised objections, inter alia, contending that there was no mens rea on his part to escape the tax liability. Over-ruling the same, the 1st respondent passed the order levying penalty. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the same before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter he preferred an appeal before the STAT, which is pending. In the meanwhile, allegedly, the respondents contemplated to issue garnishee notice to the petitioner’s creditors. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant petition alleging that, as a rule of practice, the Joint/Additional Commissioners are not granting stay even if a revision is filed before them. This Court passed interim order on 6.7.2009 prohibiting coercive steps on condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the amount demanded. The counsel submits that the said order has been complied with. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner, the special counsel for respondents, and have also perused the order of the 1st respondent levying penalty under Section 53(1)(ii) of the A.P. VAT Act. The plea that there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner in filing the return and paying tax cannot be gone into at this stage. It is a mixed question of law and fact before an inference is drawn as to whether the under-declared output tax is intentional or not. Therefore, we refrain from going into the fact. As the petitioner has already deposited 25%, we deem it proper to prevent the respondents from taking coercive steps till disposal of the appeal before the STAT on condition of the petitioner depositing a further sum equivalent to 25% of the penalty amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also observe that the appeal be disposed of by the STAT, Hyderabad Bench, as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ V.V.S.RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 07.06.2011 ASP