IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9273 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Sri Siddi Vinayaka Mahalaxmi & Glass Works, Goshamahal, Rep.by its Partner Mr. A.Mahesh, 6-3-841, Malakunta, Goshamahal,Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the attachment notice in Form VAT 206 dated 29.3.2010 issued by the first respondent demanding for payment of tax and penalty for the assessment year 2007-2008 pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of first respondent under APVAT Act and deals in glass business. The first respondent completed the assessment for the year 2007-08 levying a tax of Rs.7,85,795/- and also issued penalty proceedings for the same assessment year levying penalty to the tune of Rs.7,85,795/-, aggrieved by which the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta, Hyderabad, which were dismissed on 15.2.2010. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also filed stay applications before the second respondent. While so, the first respondent has issued demand notice for payment of tax and penalty and the second respondent has issued attachment notice in Form VAT 206 to the third respondent attaching bank account for collection of disputed taxes, pending appeals before the Appellate Tribunal and stay petition before the second respondent. The petitioner filed WP No. 14020 of 2008 seeking stay of the collection of the disputed tax for the above assessment year pending appeals before the appellate authorities and the said writ petition was disposed of granting stay, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying 50% of the disputed taxes. Since the orders passed by the lower authorities are illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay. It is further submitted that pending appeal and stay petition before the Appellate Tribunal and second respondent, the issuance of notice by the first respondent demanding payment and the issuance of attachment notice dated 29.3.2010 by the second respondent attaching bank account for collection of the disputed tax and penalty is illegal. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner paying 50% of the disputed tax and 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the disputed tax and 25% of the penalty within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amounts of tax and penalty. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sums. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 22, 2010 Copy by tomorrow //BO// MAS