IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23039 of 2008 Between: M/s.Vishnupriya Company , Srikalahasthi, Rep.by its Managing partner,Gurudasardhan,S/o.V.Guruswamy Chetty R/o.Srikalahasthi,Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, FAC O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial TAxes,Nampally Hyderabad 2 The Dy. Commissioner ,Commercial Taxes, Chittoor 3 The Commercial TAx officer, Puttur 4 The Deputy commercial Tax officer-II,Puttur .....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 an appropriate writ of mandamus declaring the action of the fourth respondent in issuing the distraint order dated 22.7.2007 inRc.No.1/2008 in GIN.--/2000-1 (CST) requiring the petitioner to pay the disputed Tax in an amount of Rs.,6,21,394/- pending disposal of the appeal in TA.No.252/2008 before the Sales TAx Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad pursuant to stay rejection orders dated 18.9.2007 of the ﬁrst respondent s illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently to set aside the impugned distant order and forbear the 3rd and 4th respondents from collecting the taxes in dispute pending disposal of the appeal in TA.No.252/2008 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and grant such other relief or reliefs as deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI.A.V.KRISHNA KAUNDINYA (SPL.SC FOR CT) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23039 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the distraint order, dated 22.7.2007 in R.C.No.1/2008 in GIN.--/2000-2001 (CST) directing the petitioner to pay the disputed tax of Rs.,6,21,394/-, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently, to set aside the impugned order and restrain respondents 3 & 4 from collecting the taxes in dispute pending disposal of the appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that challenging the orders of the 2nd respondent, an appeal has been ﬁled before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Pending the appeal, the petitioner ﬁled a stay petition before the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent rejected the said petition. Taking advantage of the same, the 4th respondent issued distraint order directing the petitioner to pay the disputed tax and hence, the petitioner has paid Rs.1,00,000/-. Now, the authorities are trying to take coercive steps to collect the balance disputed tax. Hence, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against the order passed by the 2nd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal and the same is pending and that pursuant to the distraint order, the petitioner has paid Rs.1,00,000/- and now, the authorities are trying to take coercive steps to collect the balance disputed tax and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the collection of the balance disputed tax is not entertained and if the recovery of the balance disputed tax in question is eﬀected during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a ﬁt case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax till disposal of the appeal pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount, if any already paid, 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 Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 22nd October, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:23039 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 22/10/2008