IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 23444 of 2008 Between: M/s. Agro Tech Foods Limited, 31, S.D. Road, Secunderabad, Rep by its Manager- Tazation Smt. Priti Borkar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Special Commodities Circle, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 3 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 4 Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), 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 a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs. 23,43,690/- for the tax period from April, 2005 to March, 2007, arising in pursuance of the appeal order of the third respondent dated 27-8-2008 passed in Appeal No. S/23/2007-08-VAT, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal or to pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 23444 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of mandamus, granting stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.23,43,690-00 for the tax period from April 2005 to March 2007, arising in pursuance of the orders passed in Appeal No.S/23/2007-08-VAT by the third respondent, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of edible oils and is an assessee on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent. It is stated that the second respondent by his proceedings dated 29- 6-2007 passed in Form No./VAT-305 made an assessment of VAT for the tax period from April 2005 to March 2007 requiring the petitioner to pay a further tax of Rs.23,43,690-00. Against the said order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the third respondent. While the said appeal is pending before the third respondent, the second respondent initiated penalty proceedings dated 05-12-2007 in Form VAT-203 levying a penalty of Rs.23,43,690-00 at 100% on the tax levied. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the third respondent. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 27-9-2008 dismissed the appeal and the said orders were served on the petitioner on 22-10- 2008. During the pendency of the appeal before the third respondent, the petitioner ﬁled WP.No.1191 of 2008 before this court and sought stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.23,43,690-00 and this court by its order dated 05-1-2008 directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed penalty and accordingly the petitioner complied the orders of this court. Even before the appeal orders of the third respondent were served on the petitioner, the second respondent issued notice dated 20-10-2008 requiring the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% of the disputed penalty within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which action would be initiated for the recovery of the same under the AP Revenue Recovery Act. Against the said appeal order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner ﬁled WP.No.1191 of 2008 before this court and sought stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.23,43,690-00 and this court by its order dated 05-1-2008 directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed penalty and accordingly the petitioner complied the orders of this court. Even before the appeal orders of the third respondent were served on the petitioner, the second respondent issued notice dated 20-10-2008 requiring the petitioner to deposit the balance 75% of the disputed penalty within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which action would be initiated for the recovery of the same under the AP Revenue Recovery Act. Against the said appeal order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law. 5. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the meanwhile the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the same, pending appeal. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH. 29-X-2008. NB: Furnish CC of this order tomorrow. // BY ORDER // I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}