IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20860 of 2008 Between: M/s. Hotel Raghavendra bhavan (Udipi) Sy.No. 190/2D, Ponnamakulapalli Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. R. Muniratnam Naidu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Plot No. 16, Opp. LIC Rever View Colony, Kurnool. 2 The Commercial Tax officer, Chittoor-II Circle, Chittoor. 3 The Deputy Commercial Tax officer, Palamaneru, Chittoor- II Circle, Chittoor. .....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in issuing Form 5 and 7 Vide Chittoor Gazette dt.24-7-2008 under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 directing to penalty of Rs.4,31,919/- when pending statutory appeal of the petitioner before the 1st respondent as arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the Act and also in violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs.4,31,919/- for the year 2003-2004 pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : . THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20860 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the action of respondents No.2 & 3 in issuing Form 5 and 7 Vide Chittoor Gazette dated 24-7-2008 under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act for the Assessment Year 2003-2004 for recovery of penalty, during pendency of the statutory appeal before the 1st respondent, as arbitrary and in violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently, to grant stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs.4,31,919/- for the year 2003-2004, pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st Respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the penalty proceedings of the 2nd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 1st respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool and the same is pending. At this stage, respondents 2 and 3 initiated action under A.P. Revenue Recovery Act by issuing Form 5,7 & 7A for collection of arrears of the tax. Then, the petitioner ﬁled an application before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed penalty pending disposal of the appeal and the same is pending. While so, a sale notice has been published in the Chittoor District Gazette, according to which, the auction will be held on 15.10.2008. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred. 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 preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the same is pending and that the application seeking stay of recovery of the penalty is also pending before the 1st respondent and therefore, the action of respondents 2 and 3 in issuing attachment notice and notice of sale of land proposing to sell the attached property is arbitrary and illegal and in these circumstances, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the disputed penalty is recovered by proceeding with the proposed auction scheduled to be held on 15.10.2008, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal before 1st respondent would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the 1st respondent, 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 and its consequential proceedings, pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty, within a period of eight weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount already 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 Ramesh Ranganathan Date:25th September, 2008 NOT E: Issue CC in two days. (BO) nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20860 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 25/09/2008