IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7405 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Raviteja Textiles, Shop No. 74 to 76, Sri Bapuji Market Complex, Ongole, Prakasam District, Rep. By its Proprietor Mr. D.Sarveswara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Ongole and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 16.2.2010 issued by the second respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed penalty amount of Rs.95,926/- for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 under AP VAT Act as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and grant stay pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on textile business from 1991-92 onwards and is a registered dealer on the rolls of first respondent under APVAT Act. The petitioner was assessed by the first respondent by proceedings dated 29.12.2008 and an amount of Rs.95,926/- was levied as tax and also proposed to levy equal amount of penalty by proceedings dated 26.6.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 26.10.2009. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in AR No. 26 of 2010 and also moved stay application before the second respondent, which was rejected by an order dated 16.2.2010, pursuant to which the first respondent is contemplating coercive steps for recovery. Hence, the writ petition. 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 though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay. It is further submitted that pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the insistence of the first respondent to pay the disputed penalty amount is illegal. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty amount. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty amount within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amount of penalty. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 06, 2010 MAS