IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11844 of 2008 Between: M/s. Nagarjuna Constructions Co. Ltd. 41, Nagarjuna Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 082 rep by its Executive Director Sri A.G.K. Raju ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer (OFA), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 2 Appeal Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 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 direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 3,28,75,738/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 under the APGST Act arising in pursuance of the stay rejection orders of the third respondent dated 30-11-2007 passed in CCT's Ref.No. LIII(2)/790/2007 Pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11844 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.3,28,75,738/- for the assessment year 2003-2004, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent, but the 2nd respondent partly allowed, partly remanded and partly dismissed the appeal and that having aggrieved by the dismissal portion, an appeal has been preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and an application was filed seeking stay of collection of the balance disputed tax before the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent rejected the stay application. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax and in these circumstances, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the entire disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal before Tribunal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, 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 disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-2004 pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six 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: 11th June, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:11844 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 11/06/2008