IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17395 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sun Trading and Marketing Services, Vijayawada, Rep. byits Accounts Assistant, Mr. M. Prabhakar Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Autonagar Circle, Vijayawada. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, (FAC), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the stay application filed by the petitioner seeing stay of recovery of the disputed penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the APGST Act through the impugned orders in CCT's Ref.No. LV(20/371/2008 dated 30-05-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, contrary to the provisions of the Act and set aside the same and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of disputed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act pendign disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench and to pass \Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the third respondent in CCT’s. Ref.No.LV(2)/ 371/2008 and insisting for payment of the disputed tax of Rs.1,00,0000/- for the assessment year 2004-2005, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed penalty pending appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a dealer in Consumer Electronics goods and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. The first respondent passed an order dated 18.12.2006, levying penalty on the ground that there was delay in filing the returns and payment of tax for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. Since the first respondent did not serve copy of the said order, an Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent, which, however, was dismissed by the second respondent on 7.1.2008, observing that the service of the order by the first respondent on the petitioner can not be said as improper inasmuch as there is stamp affixed on the copy of the order, though it is contention of the petitioner that the service is not on an authorised person and, therefore, it does not amount to service in terms of Rule 58 of the A.P.G.S.T. Rules. The order passed by the second respondent was assailed by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also moved an application seeking stay before the third respondent, which was rejected vide the order impugned. It is further submitted that since there is imminent threat of coercive steps, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending appeal, there is threat of coercive steps from the respondents for recovery of the disputed penalty amount. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending Appeal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount pending appeal. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar August 11, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}