IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20466 of 2008 Between: M/s.P.N Constructions 16-11-310/1/2/B Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad-500036 Rep.by its Proprietrix Mrs P.Nirmala W/o. Sri P.Sudershan Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal(FAC) office of the Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Nampally St Road Opp.Gandhi Bhavan Hyderabad,Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT) Punjagutta Division,Nampally,Hyderabad 3 The Commerial Tax Officer Malkapet Circle Gagan Vihar Building,Nampally, 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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt 18-7-2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref No.L-III(2)/545/2008 for assessment year 2004-05(APGST) as illegal, unjustiﬁed and contrary to the provisions of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents.: SPECIAL 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 : 20466 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order, dated 18.7.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT’s Ref.No.L- III(2)/545/2008 for the assessment year 2004-2005. It is the case of the petitioner that against the order, dated 19.3.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. Along with the appeal, a stay application was ﬁled, but the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent. Having aggrieved by the same, a revision was preferred before the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent also refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. 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% pf the 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 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: 19th September, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20466 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 19/09/2008