sxxxxx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12110 of 2008 Between: M/s. Glass & Glazing Technologies, D-1, Namrata Apartments, Dhanlaxmi Society, Mahendr Hills, Secunderabad, rep. by its Managing Partner, T.S. Nataraj, S/o. Satyanarayana ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Commissioner (CT) LTU, Begumpet Division, 6-3-789, 5th Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, S.D. Road Circle, 6-3-789, 4th Floor, Pavani Prestige, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, 5th Floor, Commercial Taxes Complex, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned garnishee Notices in Form VAT 206 dt. 24.04.2008 & 02.05.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the facts and law and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents.: SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12110 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the garnishee notices in Form VAT 206, dated 24.4.2008 and 2.5.2008 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the same. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the penalty imposed by the 1st respondent, an appeal and the application seeking stay of collection of the penalty, have been filed before the 3rd respondent and the same are pending disposal. While so, the 2nd respondent issued garnishee notices. Having aggrieved by the same, 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 filed an appeal as well as the stay application before the 3rd respondent and having knowledge of the pendency of the appeal as well as the stay application, the 2nd respondent issued impugned notices and at this juncture, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the 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 fact that the appeal is pending before the 3rd 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 penalty in question pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty in question, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the penalty amount, if any 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: 17th June, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:12110 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 17/06/2008