IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10551 OF 2010 Between: M/s. GSL coal Sales Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 142-C, Innovation Apartments, P.G. Road, Secunderabad Rep. By its Director Sri Gurpreet Singh Lamba ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer (CT) Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking to set aside the order dated 22.2.2010 passed in appeal No. BV/30/2009-10 by the second respondent and the consequential demand notice dated 12.3.2010 issued by the first respondent to pay an amount of Rs.41,12,301/- towards penalty, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to restrain the respondents from taking coercive steps for recovery thereof for the assessment year 2006-2007 pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of providing solutions to various types of products and is in possession of fleet of transit mixers used for transporting the ready mix concrete and is a registered dealer on the rolls of first respondent. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 6.8.2007 proposing to levy 100% penalty amounting to Rs.66,12,301/- on the ground that it has transferred the right to use the transit mixers to M/s. Grasim Industries Limited and the amounts so received are liable to tax, to which the petitioner filed written objections on 15.1.2009, but, however, the first respondent by order dated 31.3.2008 confirmed the levy of penalty for the year 2006-2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta, Hyderabad. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued notice dated 19.6.2009 demanding to pay disputed penalty of Rs.66,12,301/- for the year 2006-2007 and subsequently issued notice dated 29.7.2009 to the petitioner’s bank to pay the said sum, which has effected payment of Rs.13,24,186/- . The stay petition filed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was rejected by order dated 25.8.2009, pending appeal, which was assailed by the petitioner in revision before the Joint Commissioner. On the direction from the respondent No.1 when the petitioner approached for lifting the bank attachment, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs. In the meanwhile, the Joint Commissioner has passed order dated 23.10.2009 rejecting to stay the collection of disputed penalty. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, disposed of the appeals filed by the petitioner pertaining to previous assessment years on 30.11.2009. Thereafter, the respondent No.2, by an order dated 22.2.2010, rejected all the contentions raised by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal confirming the final assessment dated 21.10.2008. Pursuant to the said dismissal, the first respondent has issued demand notice dated 12.3.2010 directing the petitioner’s bank to pay an amount of Rs.41,12,301/- towards penalty for the year 2006- 2007 and sought for freezing the account. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the appellate authority for granting stay, no such stay was granted and pursuant to the dismissal order dated 22.2.2010, the first respondent has issued notice seeking to freeze the petitioner’s bank account. It is further submitted that pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, such a notice ought not to have been issued by the first respondent. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of four weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amount of penalty. The amounts, if any, already been paid by the petitioner, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 30, 2010 MAS