THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 720 of 2008, 741 of 2008 and 742 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) Since the Writ Petitions are filed challenging the same order, but for different reliefs, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order. The Writ Petitions are filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the impugned garnishee notice dated 7.1.2008 issued by the 1st respondent in its letter No.28270189788/1A/2008 as illegal and arbitrary and also for stay of penalty and interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner firm is a registered dealer under the APVAT Act, 2005 vide TIN No.282270189788 on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 4th respondent has imposed a tax of Rs. 2,03,519/- for the year 2006-07, and also imposed interest of Rs. 2,03,519/- for the year 2007-08 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 12,238/- on the petitioner. Challenging the said imposition of Tax, interest and penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the orders of the 4th respondent dated 12.10.2007 before the 2nd respondent on 6.11.2007 and the same is still pending before the 2nd respondent. In the meantime on 7.1.2008, the 1st respondent has issued a garnishee notice to the Corporation Bank. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner seeking stay of collection of tax, interest and penalty. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the stay petition filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent against the orders of the 2nd respondent is still pending and the appeal before the 2nd respondent is also pending. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the acts of the respondents, the petitioner is not in a position to carry on the business. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, if the garnishee order is not suspended with regard to the penalty and interest imposed by the 4th respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice if interim stay of collection of tax, penalty and interest is granted by suspending the garnishee order with certain conditions. Hence, there shall be stay of operation of the impugned garnishee notice dated 7.1.2008 in letter No. 28270189788/1A/2008 subject to condition that the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the penalty, 50% of the demanded tax imposed by the respondent before the 4th respondent within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order after giving credit to the amount already deposited by the petitioner. Further, it is made clear that there shall also be a stay of collection of the total interest imposed by the respondents vide impugned garnishee notice cited supra, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and the respondents are further directed to dispose of the revision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 22.1.2008 N.B. C.C. in one week. BO CHV