IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3267 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Limited, Sirpur-Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District rep. by its Chief Administrative Officer, Ch. Seetharamaiah, s/o. Late Venkatappaiah, Aged 61 Yrs., R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Building, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax) LTU, Abids Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or orders, direction or directions to declare the notice of the 2nd respondent dated 9.2.2009 in Rc.No.AC(CT)LTU/08-09 and the consequential direction Garnishee notice dated 16.2.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent not to proceed further for recovery of the amount as per his notice dated 9.2.2009 in Rc.No.AC(CT)LTU/08-09 pending the disposal of the Appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, pertaining to the Assessment Order dated 30.08.2008 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned standing counsel, Sri Krishna Kaundinya appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the impugned orders whereby interest has been demanded on the ground that tax was not paid in time. It is the case of the petitioner that so far as recovery of tax is concerned, this Court has protected the petitioner by permitting him to pay only 50% of the tax in Writ Petition No. 25646 of 2008. In the circumstances, it has been submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition and the appeal proceedings pending before the concerned authority, the petitioner should not be asked to pay interest on the amount of tax unpaid. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents that as tax was not paid in time, it is the liability of the petitioner to pay interest. Therefore, the demand raised with regard to interest is just and proper. We have heard the learned advocates and have noticed the fact that the petitioner has been protected by this Court in the matter of payment of tax to the tune of 50% and the subject of payment of tax is pending before the appellate authority. Looking to the facts of the case, we direct the petitioner to pay 25% of the amount of interest payable under the impugned orders within four weeks from today. Implementation of the impugned orders is suspended during the pendency of the appeal pending before the concerned authority. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. __________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 19th February, 2009. ks