IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15146 of 2008 Between: M/s. DLF Laing O' Rourke (India) Ltd., H.I.G., B-140, A.P.H.B. Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Sri S. Subramanian ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division, CCT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner (CT) Audit VAT Management Unit-II Hyderabad Rural Division, Gaganavihar, 4th Floor, Nampalli, 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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt. 8.7.2008 passed by the 1st Respondent in Appeal No. R/29/2008-2009-VAT (Ex.P.1) as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to the facts and law and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents: 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 : 15146 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the order dated 8.7.2008 passed by the 1st Respondent in Appeal No. R/29/2008-2009-VAT (Ex.P.1) as illegal and arbitrary. The main grievance of the petitioner is that against the levy of interest by the 2nd respondent, an appeal has been filed before the 1st respondent and along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed interest was also filed. But the 1st respondent rejected the stay petition. Having aggrieved by the same, 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 filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and the same is pending and at this juncture, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the disputed interest 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 1st 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 interest in question pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty in question, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the interest amount, if any already paid, 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: 15th July, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire At party’s costs. (BO) Nn. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:15146 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 15/07/2008