IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21222 of 2008 Between: M/s. Aclamar Oils and Fats Limited, Aparna Crust, 4th Floor, 8-2-120/112/88 and 89, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Manager (Finance) Mr. Priyadarshan. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Special Commodities Circle, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.7,33,03,954/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act through the impugned proceedings dated 20.9.2008 and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in demanding the balance disputed tax and contemplating to take coercive steps as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.7,33,03,954/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21222 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order, dated 20.9.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent refusing to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.7,33,03,954/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act, and seeking to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2004-05, an appeal has been ﬁled before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. Along with the appeal, a stay application was also ﬁled. But the same was rejected. Now, steps are being taken for recovery of the disputed tax and in such course, a notice has also been issued. 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 the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that the stay petition ﬁled before the 2nd respondent was rejected and at this juncture, the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the notiﬁcation impugned is illegal and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and if the disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal would be defeated. It is further submitted that a stay may be granted subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax and out of 50%, the petitioner has already paid Rs.1 Crore (One Crore) and liberty may be granted to pay remaining Rs.2.50 Crores in monthly installments at the rate of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only). In the facts and circumstances of the case 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 balance disputed tax for the assessment year in question, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, which comes to about Rs.3.50 Crores. It is made clear that the amount viz., Rupees One Crore paid already, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The petitioner is at liberty to pay remaining Rs.2.50 Crores in monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) each on or before 15th of every succeeding month, commencing from 15th October, 2008. It is also made clear that after completion of the deposit of the above stipulated amount, the appeal shall be disposed of. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 29th September, 2008 Note: CC in two days (BO) Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21222 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29/09/2008