IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10362 of 2010 Dated: 29.4.2010 Between: M/s Tata Steels Limited, Surya Towers, VI Floor, rep., by its Finance & Administrative Manager S. Jhansi Bhavani Choudary. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10362 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing penalty by order dated 31.3.2008 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to interdict the 2nd respondent from enforcing the demand during the pendency of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the imposition of penalty for the tax period 04/2007 to 11/2007, it has preferred second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending. While so, the authorities are trying to initiate coercive steps for collection of the penalty amount. 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 appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the imposition of penalty for the tax period 04/2007 to 11/2007 is pending before the Tribunal and that the petitioner had already paid 50% of the disputed tax, but the respondents are trying to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and the disputed penalty is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. In view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Tribunal and in view of the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already paid more than 50% of the disputed tax, 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 amount, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty amount for the tax period 04/2007 to 11/2007, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the penalty amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 29th April, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO :10362 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29/04/2010