IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10927 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sagar Thermit CorporationLtd., Balanagar, Hyderabad. Ranga Reddy District rep by its General Manager, Sri G. Kesava Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Fathenagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad Rural Division C.T., Hyderabad 3 The Bench Manager, State bank of India Balanagar Branch, Hyderabad. 4 Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), A.P., 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 may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the stay application by proceedings dated 08-5-2008 without considering any contentions and much less not even referring them while rejecting the stay application, and also issuing garnishee notice to the 3rd respondent by the 1st respondent vide notice dt 24-04-2008 when pending appeal and stay application as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed demand of Rs. 42, 38, 208/- for the year 2003-04 under CST Act, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10927 of 2008 ORDER: (per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the stay application, by proceedings dated 08.05.2008, and action of the 1st respondent, in issuing a garnishee notice to the 3rd respondent, vide notice dated 24.04.2008 during the pendency of the appeal and the stay application, the present writ petition is filed. Petitioner seeks stay of collection of the disputed demand of Rs.42,38,208/- for the assessment year 2003-04 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad. The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business in fusion, welding of rail joints by Alumino Thermit SKV process. For the assessment year 2003-04, the 1st respondent completed the assessment, by proceedings dated 05.03.2007, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 23.07.2007, and the 2nd respondent remanded the matter by order dated 18.09.2007. Thereafter, the 1st respondent again passed orders dated 10.03.2008, levying higher rate of tax of ten per cent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application, and subsequently, the 1st respondent gave credit for the tax payments made earlier. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 15.04.2008, and also filed an application for stay. By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent rejected the stay application. It is the petitioner’s grievance that even during the pendency of the proceedings before the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent issued garnishee notice to the 3rd respondent on 24.04.2008. Since the appeal is still pending before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, ends of justice would be met if, while staying all further proceedings for recovery of the tax dues, the petitioner is directed to pay fifty percent of the disputed demand of Rs.42,38,208/-, pending disposal of the appeal. The amount, if any paid, shall be given credit to. It is represented that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- has already been paid and that the remaining amount required to be paid towards fifty per cent of the disputed tax is approximately Rs.13,50,000/-. The garnishee order shall therefore be restricted only to Rs.13,50,000/- and shall be lifted with regards the balance. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) Date:21.05.2008 _____________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) sh/vs/asp