IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17973 of 2008 Between: M/s. Adarsh Alluminium Corporation, 2-3-452, Minister Road, Secunderabad- 500003. rep. by its Partner Sri Vijaynagori. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Commercial (CT) (legal), CCT's Office, II Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, CCT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, M.G. Road Circle, 3rd Floor, Pavani Prestige, R.S. Brothers Buildings, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500016. .....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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 29.07.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/548/2008 (Ex.P1) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the facts and Law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17973 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 29.7.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT’s Ref.No.LIII (2)/548/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the assessment made by the 3rd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax was also filed. But the 2nd respondent rejected the said application. Hence, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent. But the said revision was also rejected. Taking advantage of the same, the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the recovery proceedings and in such course, a garnishee notice has also been issued. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 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 2nd respondent challenging the assessment made by the 3rd respondent and the same is pending and at this juncture, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the entire disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the 2nd 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 the recovery of the disputed tax as well as the garnishee notice, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount 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 P.V. Sanjay Kumar Date: 19th August, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17973 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 19/08/2008