IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18656 of 2008 Between: M/s. Aakanti Glass Stores Rep.by its Partner A.Mahesh S/o.Late Sudarshan 6-3-841 Malakunta Goshamahal, Hyderabad-AP ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Begum Bazar Circle, Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (CT) Punjagutta Division Hyderabad-AP .....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 direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in demanding the penalty for the assessment years 2005-06 2006-07 during pendency of the appeals before the 2nd respondent is illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P VAT act 2005 and grant such other reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KUNUKUDURGAPRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPL. 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 : 18656 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in demanding the penalty for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, pending the appeals before the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the writ petitioner that aggrieved by the penalty proceedings issued by the 1st respondent, appeals have been ﬁled before the 2nd respondent-1st appellate authority and they are pending for consideration. While so, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed penalty. 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 challenging the penalty proceedings issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has preferred appeals before the 2nd respondent and the same are pending and at this stage, the insistence for payment of the disputed penalty is not justiﬁed and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and if the entire disputed penalty 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 quantum of the penalty and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent, 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 recovery of the disputed penalty for the assessment years 2005-2006 & 2006- 2007, pending disposal of the appeals before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty of each assessment year, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the penalty 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: 29th August, 2008 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18656 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29/08/2008