THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN DATED: This the 24th day of September 2009. Writ Petition No. 19815 of 2009. Between: Music World Retail Limited Rep by its Manager Legal S.Pavan, Hyderabad. ……..Petitioner vs. 1.The State of A.P. rep by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Punjagutta, Hyderabad and 4 others. ……..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 19815 of 2009. ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J). The 2nd respondent by an order dt. 28.8.2009 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 38,79,892/- including an amount of Rs. 29,69,243/- towards APGST arrears for the assessment year 2004-05, within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. A garnishee order dt. 5.9.2009 was issued to the respondents 4 and 5 Banks with whom the petitioner has accounts. Against the order of assessment dt. 28.3.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the APGST Act 1966 to the 1st respondent on 1.7.2008 along with an application for condonation of delay of 15 days. However, it would appear, the petitioner failed to deposit 12 ½ % of the disputed tax as required to be pre-deposited along with the appeal. The petitioner deposited this amount on 2.9.2009. Since the petitioner failed to adhere to the pre-deposit requirement, the 1st respondent has not taken up the appeal or the application for condonation of delay filed along with the appeal, for consideration. It is stated that pursuant to the garnishee order dt. 5.9.2009, 5th respondent transmitted an amount of Rs. 1,14,000/- to the Revenue towards the arrears due from the petitioner under the order of assessment passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner also paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,499/-. In all an amount of Rs. 16,14,499/- is stated to have been recovered by the Revenue out of the total tax liability assessed at Rs. 29,69,293/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the garnishee order dt. 5.9.2009, the balance of tax due would also be remitted by the respondents 4 and 5 which would cause untold hardship to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submits that since the petitioner has now deposited the pre-deposit amount liable to be deposited along with the appeal, the 1st respondent would now consider the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay, within a short time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to take coercive steps or pursue the respondents 4 and 5 to remit the balance of the disputed tax till the 1st respondent appellate authority disposes of the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in instituting the appeal. In the event, the 1st respondent decides to condone the delay, the respondents 1 to 3 shall also not pursue coercive measures or call upon the respondents 4 and 5 to transmit the balance of tax due from the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-05, till the 1st respondent disposes of the application of the petitioner for grant of stay, pending the appeal. The petitioner shall retain in his account with the respondents 4 and 5 the amount representing the balance of the tax due under the order of assessment passed by the 2nd respondent till the disposal of the application for condonation of delay or the application for stay, as the case may be, by the 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. 24.9.2009. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 19815 of 2009. Dated: 24.9.2009.