IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7196 of 2010 Dated: 30.3.2010 Between: M/s. Tirumala Music Centre Private Limited, Malakpet, Hyderabad rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director N. Amarnath. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT)(legal)(FAC), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7196 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the 1st respondent in rejecting the revision petition seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax for the tax period 2006-07 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax. The case of the writ petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent, it has filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Appeals and also sought stay for collection of the disputed sales tax. But the Appellate Deputy Commissioner refused to grant stay. Hence, the petitioner had filed a revision before the 1st respondent, but the 1st respondent also rejected the stay petition vide the order impugned herein. Now, the authorities are insisting for payment of the disputed tax. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and as the stay application was rejected by the 1st respondent, the authorities are insisting for payment of the disputed tax and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and 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 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Appeals, 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 recovery of the disputed tax for the tax period 2006-2007, pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of eight (8) 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 Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 30th March, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7196 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 30/03/2010