IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 10427 of 2009 Between: M/s. Aster Tele Services Private Limited, E-67, 4th Crescent Road, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad-500094. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 2 Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad. 3 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 4 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 5 Government of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, 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 to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Arrear Notice Ref.No.LTU/SA/OA/A5-1/08 dated 19.05.09 & 23.05.09 issued by the Respondent No.1 and the Order CCT's Ref.No.LIII(4)/230/2009 dated 12.05.2009 passed by Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently restrain the respondents from recovering from the petitioner a sum of Rs.53,95,526/- towards tax consequent to the proceedings on alleged non-filing of statutory forms such as C Forms, E1 and F Forms on stock transfers, Transit Sales under CST Act, 1956 for the tax period 206-07 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 10427 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and with their consent, the writ petition itself is disposed of. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 12.03.2009, the petitioner filed an appeal and stay application before the third respondent, who, by order dated 18.04.2009 rejected the stay application. Against which, the petitioner filed a revision before the third respondent, who rejected the revision by order dated 12.05.2009. In view of the rejection of the revision, the first respondent issued the impugned notice dated 19.05.2009 demanding to pay the disputed tax. Having heard the counsel, we deem it appropriate that interest of justice would be met if stay is granted pending appeal, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax demanded in pursuance of the impugned order dated 19.05.2009. The writ petition is disposed of granting stay subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax demanded in pursuance of the impugned order dated 19.05.2009, pending disposal of the appeal, within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to mention that the amount, if any, deposited shall be given credit to. Further, the third respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. B.PRAKASH RAO,J SANJAY KUMAR,J Dt.28.05.2009 Note:Wire at party’s cost Bo Usd/vv