THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.NOs.27713 & 27714 OF 2009 21-12-2009 BETWEEN; M/s G.S.L.Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad rep. by Director Gurpreet Singh Lamba ...Petitioner ( Petitioner in both writ petitions) vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad and three others ...Respondents (Respondents in both writ petitions) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.NOs.27713 & 27714 OF 2009 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per GR,J) Both the writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the urgent arrears notic dated 19-11-2009 (the impugned notice) demanding payment of arrears o tax and penalty under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 and the A.P.GST Act, 1957 The writ petitions however pertain to the demand of tax and penalty for th years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. The demand for tax in an amoun of Rs.57,85,763/- for the period 2006-07 is the subject matter o W.P.No.27713 of 2009 and in W.P. No.27714 of 2009 the validity of th demand for penalty consequent on the assessment dated 18-10-2008 an for the period 2006-07 is in issue. The order of assessment was passed on 18-10-2008 and aggrieve thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd responden and along therewith sought stay of the disputed tax by an application. Th petitioner specifically pleads (in Para 15 of W.P.No.27713 of 2009) that th 3rd respondent had granted personal hearing for stay on 18-11-2009 However, even before the 3rd respondent disposed of the application fo stay in an appeal filed on 18-11-2008 over an year now, the 2n respondent issued the impugned notice threatening coercive process if th tax arrears as determined were not paid. As the stay application of the petitioner is undetermined as yet by th 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 06-08-200 proposing to levy 100% penalty under Section 53(3) of the A.P. VA Act,2005. After due process the 2nd respondent by the order dated 31-03 2008 confirmed the levy of penalty, determined at Rs.66,21,301/ Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd responden on 10.06.2008. By the order dated 25-08-2009 the 3rd respondent rejecte grant of stay. An unsuccessful revision thereagainst instituted wa dismissed by the Joint Commissioner by the order dated 25-08-2009. As consequence, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned notice demandin the penalty of Rs.41,12,301/-.The petitioner contends that an amount o Rs.25 lakhs has already been appropriated by the Revenue toward penalty for this period pursuant to a garnishee notice issued to th petitioner’s bank and that this amount represents the balance due toward the penalty component as assessed by the order of the 2nd responden dated 31-03-2008. After hearing Sri Lakshmi Kumaran, the learned counsel for th petitioner and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya the learned Special Standin Counsel for Commercial Taxes for the respondents, we consider inequitable that the petitioner be coerced to pay the arrears of tax a assessed by the assessing authority even while the 3rd respondent keep undecided the petitioner’s application for stay pending his substantiv appeal preferred to the said respondent and for over an year now. It is als inequitable that the Revenue should initiate coercive process for recover of the penalty as determined consequent on the order of assessment whil the 3rd respondent is yet to determine and pass orders on the petitioner’ substantive appeal or even its application for stay therein. In the circumstances above, both writ petitions are disposed of at th stage of admission directing the respondents:- (a) not to take coercive steps for recovery of the tax liability o Rs.57,85,763/- for the period 2006-07 pending disposal of th petitioner’s application for stay pending the substantive appea preferred to the 3rd respondent; (b) to forbear from taking coercive steps for recovery of the penalt of Rs.41,12,301/- pending disposal of the substantive appea preferred by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent i.e., for the perio 2006-07; and (c) directing the 3rd respondent to expeditiously dispose of th substantive appeal of the petitioner and at any rate the applicatio for interim relief sought therein, preferably within a period of two (2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 21st DECEMBER 2009 Note. Issue CC As soon as possible (B/O) TSNR