IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3864 of 2008 Between: M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, 1st floor, Deccan Chambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager-Taxation, Sri. B.V.D.Nagaraj Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner(CT) Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad. 3 Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 4 Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENS 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 order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.29,39,270/- for the assessment year 2006-07 (APVAT) arising in pursuance of the stay rejection of the third respondent dated 29.01.2008 read with the notice dated 15.2.2008 issued by the Second Respondent pending disposal of the appeal before the third respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: Spl. Standing counsel for Commercial Taxes. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3864 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent No.3 in refusing to grant stay of collection of the disputed penalty for the assessment year 2006-07. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 31.8.2007 has determined tax at Rs.2,93,92,698/- on a turnover of Rs.12,41,76,025/- alleged to be representing the freight charges collected by the petitioner on the sale of HSD and MS. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, who by his proceedings dated 18.2.2008 dismissed the appeal, against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending appeal before the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has levied penalty of Rs.29,39,270/- vide proceedings dated 13.11.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the 3rd respondent with a stay petition seeking stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs.29,39,270/-. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.1.2008 dismissed the stay petition. Hence this writ petition. As could be seen, the controversy is that pending appeal, the application for stay was rejected by the Competent Authority. We have gone through the record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we feel that the interest of justice would have been met had the stay granted pending appeal, subject to deposit of 1/4th of the liability. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct that there shall be stay of disputed penalty, pending appeal, subject to payment of 1/4th of the penalty and interest on or before 31st March, 2008. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.MEENA KUMARI, J. G.ROHINI, J. February 26, 2008. Note: Issue copies in four days. (BO) MVB.