IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18138 of 2008 Between: M/s. South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal rep.by its Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Sri R.Venkat Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Guntakal 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad .....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 a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.10,33,488/- for the assessment year 2003-04 (APGST), arising in pursuance of the dismissal order of the second respondent dated 31.3.2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18138 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-04, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal had been preferred before the 2nd respondent. But the same was dismissed. Having aggrieved by the same, a further appeal has been preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner also ﬁled an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax before the 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent rejected the stay petition. Taking advantage of the same, the 1st respondent is threatening to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax and that the 3rd respondent rejected the stay petition, and in these circumstances, if the relief of stay is not granted and if 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 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 certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of the recovery of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six 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 P.V. Sanjay Kumar Date: 21st August, 2008 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18138 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 21/08/2008