IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23068 of 2008 Between: M/s. Dhanalakshmi Iron Industries Limited, 15-9-360, Mahaboobgunj, Hyderabad - 500 012. Rep by its Director, Mr. Rajesh Gupta ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Maharajgunj Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the stay application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of disputed penalty amount of Rs. 16,99,555/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and quash the same and restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty amount of Rs. 16,99,555/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST Act, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: KUM.K.UMA Counsel for the Respondents.: SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : . THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23068 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent, in rejecting the application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of disputed penalty for the assessment year 2004-2005, as illegal and arbitrary and quash the same and to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2 nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that challenging the orders passed by the 1st respondent levying the penalty, an appeal has been ﬁled before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also ﬁled a stay application. But the 2nd respondent rejected the stay petition. Now, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed penalty. 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 in respect of the penalty in question and the same is pending and that the stay application ﬁled before the 2nd respondent was rejected and now, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed penalty and at this junct ure, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the disputed penalty is recovered by initiating any coercive steps, 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 penalty, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the penalty 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:22nd October, 2008 nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23068 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 22/10/2008