IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 16810 OF 2009 Between: M/S. Mahi Motors, H.No. 4-47/2, Bellampally Road, Mancherial, Adilabad District Rep.by its Managing Partner Mr. Ch.Ramesh Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division, Warangal and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 09.06.2009 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No. D/63/08-09 and insisting for payment of the disputed penalty of Rs.66,08,280/- as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed penalty, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of two wheelers and three wheelers of Bajaj Auto Limited and is a registered dealer on the rolls of second respondent under APGST Act. On the basis of the provisional assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CT, Intelligence, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad, by order dated 3.10.2005, penalty proceedings were issued by the second respondent determining the liability at Rs.83,86,551/- which is three time the tax liability at Rs.27,95,517/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, which was remanded for disposal afresh. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent issued show cause notice dated 18.10.2008 proposing to levy penalty on a turnover of Rs.2,15,03,960/-. The petitioner filed objections for the same on 8.12.2008 but however, without considering the same, the second respondent passed an order dated 13.02.2009 levying the penalty of Rs.66,08,280/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and also moved stay petition seeking collection of stay of the disputed penalty amount, which was, however, rejected by order dated 27.4.2009. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 12093 of 2009 and by order dated 22.6.2009, this court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount in question till the hearing of appeal is concluded and an order afresh is passed by the appellate authority. Pursuant to this order, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 16.07.2009, observing that in view of the disposal of the appeal by order dated 9.6.2009, the order of this court with regard to stay petition had become infrucutous and as a result of the dismissal of the appeal, the second respondent had issued notice dated 4.8.2009 directing the petitioner to pay the disputed penalty amount within three days. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has erred in dismissing the appeal by a bald order without considering the contentions. He further submits that pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal, the second respondent is contemplating coercive steps proposing to recover the disputed penalty amount. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed penalty. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 1, 2010 MAS