HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:1300 OF 2008 Dated:28.01.2008 Between: M/s. NCL Alltek & Seccolor Limited, Raghav Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad, rep., by its Deputy Manager (Finance) B. Venkateswara Gupta. ..Petitioner And 1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Nampally Circle, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:1300 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 14.12.2007 passed in CCT’s Ref.No.LV (1)/821/2007 by the 3rd respondent refusing to grant stay of recovery of disputed tax levied by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2003-2004 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for collection of balance disputed tax of Rs.16,88,183/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.27,54,054/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner is that challenging the assessment order of the 1st respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of disputed tax was also filed. But the said application was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the 3rd respondent. But, however, the 3rd respondent has also rejected the revision. Pursuant to the rejection of stay, the 1st respondent has been insisting for payment of the disputed tax. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel 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 appeal against the assessment order is pending before the 2nd respondent and at this stage, respondents 2 and 3 are not justified in rejecting the stay application. It is further contended that taking advantage of the rejection of stay, the 1st respondent is trying to take coercive steps and in these circumstances, if the relief as to the stay of the proceedings is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax is effected during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal 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 imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of disputed tax till disposal of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six (6) 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 G. Rohini Date: 28th January, 2008 Nn/Gurc. HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No:1300 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 28/01/2008