IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 25160 of 2008 Between: M/s. Hamsa Minerals (India) Private Ltd., Chittoor, rep. by its General Manager - Operations, B.N.V. Ratna Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), (FAC), O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P. Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, N.R. Pet, Kurnool. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Chittoor. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part of the 1st respondent in rejecting the Revision (Stay) Application filed by the petitioner in respect of the tax periods April 2005 and August 2005 to March, 2006 in CCT's Ref.No.L.III(3)/678/2008 dated 03.10.2008 (served on the petitioner on 22.10.2008) (filed as Annexure P1) while the appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, and unsustainable besides being quite contrary to the provisions of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAISWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORDER: (PER GR, J) This writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent-revisional authority in CCT’s Ref.No:LIII(3)/678/2008 dated 03-10-2008 whereby and whereunder the revision (preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the second respondent-appellate authority seeking stay of collection of penalty of Rs.8,93,218/- for the tax periods April, 2005 and August, 2005 to March, 2006), under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short – ‘the Act’) has been rejected. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, we deem it just and appropriate to set aside the order of the first respondent vide CCT’s Ref.No:LIII(3)/678/2008 dated 03-10-2008 rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner and further consider it appropriate to grant stay of collection of the penalty of Rs.8,93,218/- for the tax periods April, 2005 and August, 2005 to March, 2006 under the Act, during the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent, on condition of the petitioner depositing an amount representing 25% of the penalty amount to the credit of the third respondent, within a period of six weeks from today. We also make it clear that the stay granted herein of the collection of the penalty would be subject to the compliance by the petitioner of the condition of deposit as stated above within the time stipulated. The eventual liability of the petitioner to payment of the penalty would however be subject to the orders to be passed in the appeal by the second respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J 17th November 2008 Note: Office to issue copy as soon as possible. B/o CVRK