IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH 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 : 15922 of 2008 Between: M/s.Liberty Tea Corporation, M.J.Road, Hyderabad Rep. by its Partner Sri Rasheeduddin Hamid ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, Agapura Circle Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commisisoner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), (legal) 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 issue a writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.7,18,899/- for the assessment year 2002-03 arising in pursuance of the stay rejection orders of the second respondent dated 5.7.2008 passed in Appeal No.A/58/08-09 pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY 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 the order dated 05.07.2008 passed by the second respondent in Appeal No. A/58/08-09 and insisting for payment of the disputed tax of Rs.7,18,899/-for the year 2002-2003, 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 partnership firm engaged in the business of buying and selling tea powder and is an assessee on the rolls of the firs respondent. The petitioner was assessed under the APGST Act by the first respondent for the assessment year 2002-2003 determining the gross and net turnovers at Rs.6,44,59,466/- and Rs.6,40,27,769/- respectively, by proceedings dated 25.3.2004 and also levied penalty of Rs.7,18,899/- under Sec.14(8)(b) of the APGST Act by proceedings dated 27.5.2008. Aggrieved by the levy of the penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed stay petition, which was rejected vide the order impugned. Consequent to the said rejection, the first respondent issued notice dated 17.7.2008 requiring the petitioner to pay the said penalty amount and 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, the issuance of notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty amount is contrary to law. 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 Ramesh Ranganathan July 24, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}