IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5041 of 2009 Between: M/s. Jagadamba Pearl Dealers, Pot Market, Secunderabad, represented by its Partner, Mr. Mahender Agarwal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal) Office of the Commissioner (CT), Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, represented by its Secretary. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hissamgunj Circle, 7th Floor 'C' Block, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 4 The Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, Hissamgunj Circle, 7th Floor 'C' Block, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the Revision (Stay) Application for Tax and Penalty filed by the petitioner for the tax period April 2005 to May 2006 vide his orders in CCT's Ref.L.V(1)/53/2009 (for tax) and L.V.(1)52/2009, (for Penalty) both dated 6.2.2009 (served on the petitioner on 13.2.2009) (Annexure P5 & 6) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides being violative of the provisions of the AP VAT Act, 2005 and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAISWAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5041 of 2009 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in rejecting the stay petitions filed by the petitioner vide order dated 6.2.2009, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005. According to the petitioner, during the course of audit inspection, certain discrepancies and irregularities were noticed. It was alleged that the petitioner was paying tax at 1% instead of 4% on jewellery, gold coated, with effect from 1.9.2005. It was further alleged that the petitioner has been effecting branch sales showing them as stock transfer and claiming exemption from levying of tax. While so, a show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent on 31.8.2006 proposing to levy tax, penalty and interest. The petitioner submitted its explanation to the said show cause notice. The 3rd respondent through orders dated 31.8.2006, 29.9.2006 and 20.3.2007 confirmed the proposed tax, penalty and interest. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed three separate appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, the appellate Authority. The appellate authority, however confirmed the orders of assessment in so far as levy of assessment and penalty are concerned. However, the appeal in so far as levy of interest is concerned, is stated to be pending. Assailing the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in so far as levy of tax and penalty, the petitioner filed two writ petitions before this Court and this Court directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the disputed tax and 25% of the penalty amount, within six weeks. However, subsequently, the appellate Deputy Commissioner seemed to have dismissed the appeals, against which the petitioner preferred further appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Pending the appeal, it also filed stay petitions before the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeals filed against the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Secunderabad are pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the 1st respondent is not justified in rejecting the stay applications. It is further contended that by virtue of the rejection of stay applications, the 3rd respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax and penalty amount. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeals subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax and penalty amount pending disposal of the appeals before the 2nd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax and 25% of the penalty amount within a period of six weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeals. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 13th March, 2009 _________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Note: Furnish c.c. in 3 days. B/o pnb