IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4394 of 2009 Between: M/s. Apollo Health and Life Style Limited, Life Sciences Centre, Appollo Hospitals Complex, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033 Rep by its Senior Manager V.R. Murthy, Commercial & Administration ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Assisatant Commissioner (CT)-II, Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the impugned recovery notice vide Rc.No. OA/J. Hills/2008, dated 25-2-2009 issued by the 3rd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed without authority of law and jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Rule 14A (7) Rules of Central Tax (AP) Rules and in violation of principles of natural justice, in insisting the disputed tax and initiating coercive action under the provision of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Special Standing Counsel Sri Krishna Kaundinya, appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The petitioner has made a grievance in the petition that though an application praying for stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeal is pending for hearing, the respondents – authorities are trying to recover the amount of tax by use of coercive method. 3. The aforestated fact could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel. 4. In the circumstances, it is directed that till application dated 27-02-2009 which is pending before respondent No. 1 is finally decided, no coercive method shall be used for the purpose of recovery of the amount of tax covered under the appeal in question. 5. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. __________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 04th March, 2009. ks