THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16730 of 2006 March 15, 2011 Between: M/s.M.Venkata Subbaiah Represented by its Proprietor M.Venkata Subbaiah … Petitioner And Commercial Tax Officer, No.1, Nellore And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16730 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, a works contractor, is a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the APGST Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The petitioner filed return of income for the assessment year 2002-2003. The first respondent completed the assessment vide proceedings dated 22.3.2004. The same was revised by the second respondent, by order dated 30.11.2005. The petitioner assailed the same before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). Pending the same, the petitioner moved the third respondent for grant of stay in respect of reassessment orders for the following amounts ` 43,767/-, ` 75,526/- and `32,53,068/-. The third respondent, by referring the observations of this Court in M/s.Unity Constructions Pvt. Ltd., (W.P.No.3136 of 2006) rejected stay. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already paid ` 43,767/- and ` 75,526/-, which are the amounts levied by the two assessment orders, and also paid an amount of ` 8,00,000/- at the time of filing the appeal before the STAT in so far as the assessment order dated 22.3.2004 is concerned. Therefore he would urge this Court to continue the interim order during the pendency of the appeal before the STAT. We have given anxious consideration to the plea urged before us. It is well settled that, notwithstanding financial hardship, except in the rarest of rare cases, an order of stay pending appeal cannot be granted especially when such power does not inhere in the Tribunal. However, as the collection of tax from the petitioner has been stayed by this Court, we deem it proper to continue the stay on condition of the petitioner depositing another ` 8,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. We further direct the STAT to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) March 15, 2011 YS