IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19002 of 2008 Between: M/s. Meenakshi Paper Mills Private Limited., Survey No.659 Satamrai, Gaganpahad, Ranga Reddy District-501 323, Rep. by its Director, Mr. Sushil Kumar Agarwal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Rajendranagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Divisiona, Hyderabad. 3 The 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 will be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order 3rd Respondent in CCt's Ref.No.LIII(4)/437/2008, dated 17.6.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 1,04,890/- out of total disputed tax of Rs. 2,11,402/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 ( APGST) pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19002 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to set aside the order, dated 17.6.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent and consequently, to restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-2005, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal has been filed before the 2nd respondent. At the time of filing the appeal, the petitioner has paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and insofar as the balance disputed tax is concerned, the petitioner ﬁled an application seeking stay of collection of the same, before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent refused to grant stay. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition. But the 3rd respondent dismissed the revision. Now, the steps are being taken for collection of the balance disputed tax. 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 petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and that the stay was rejected by respondents 2 and 3 and pursuant to the same, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the balance disputed tax and in these circumstances of the case, if the stay is not granted and if the entire disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal would be defeated. 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, within a period of eight weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 2nd September, 2008 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19002 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 2/09/2008