THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 2302 of 2010 Dated: 05-02-2010 Between: M/s Cantronics Office Equipments Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager Mrs. Padma Mazumdar …Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Hyderabad. …Respondent. Oral order: (Per GR, J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Koundinya, learned Special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes for the respondents. The order of the 2nd respondent dated 30-12-2009 rejecting grant of stay in a pending appeal directed against an order of assessment dated 1- 9-2009 passed by the 1st respondent under the APGST Act 1957 for the assessment year 2003-04, is assailed herein. The order impugned reads as under: “M/s Cantronics Office Equipment P. Ltd., Adj.Kirloskar Hospital, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, the appellants herein, filed this appeal against the assessment orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Basheerbagh Circle, Abids Division, Hyderabad for the year 2003-04 under the APGST Act. Along with the appeal petition the appellants have also filed application for stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,33,539/-. The said application was posted for hearing on 30-12-2009. In response to the hearing notice, the appellants Authorised Representative has appeared before me and argued the Stay Petition. I have heard the arguments of the Authorised Representative and perused the grounds of Stay application and gone through the impugned assessment order carefully. In the absence of recorded evidence in support of the contentions raised therein prima facie, I find no case to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,33,539/-. I, therefore, refuse to order of stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,33,539/-. Accordingly, the stay application is rejected.” It is fairly conceded by the learned Special standing counsel that the order cannot be sustained as it is bereft of reasons. In view of this concession, we are not inclined to impose exemplary costs, which would have otherwise followed having regard to the degree of perversity of the order. The order cannot ex facie be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The 2nd respondent shall now pass an order afresh on the stay application of the petitioner which we hope and trust would record reasons for the conclusion. The writ petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 5th February, 2010. GRR