THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5049 OF 2009 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. Challenging the order dated 31.10.2008 in rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the 3rd respondent registered under the APGST and CST Acts. It is also a registered dealer under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act. Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Polyester yarn. The yarn which was manufactured at the petitioner’s Tamil Nadu Mill used to be brought to its Sales Depot at Tenali in A.P. and sales were being effected in A.P. According to the petitioner, it also submitted its returns upto the assessment year 2002-03 and is not in arrears of tax. While so, when the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the 3rd respondent on 26.10.2004, the 3rd respondent seized certain books of accounts, registers and loose slips etc., from the Depot of the petitioner and recorded a statement from the manager of the petitioner’s depot and thereafter, issued a show cause notice on 28.10.2004 alleging suppression of turn over while relying on some entries made by the then Manager in his personal note books relating to some money lending transactions done by him in his personal capacity. Having come to know of this, the petitioner suspended the said Manager and even before it could file any objection/explanation to the said show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent detained the polyester yarn of the petitioner worth of Rs. 4.00 lakhs. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court directed that the remaining stock detained shall be released on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 4.00 lakhs. The petitioner was directed to keep the bank guarantee in force till the 3rd respondent passes an assessment order. Subsequently, the petitioner executed bank guarantee for the said sum and got released the stock which was detained. However, in the meantime, the 4th respondent without waiting for the assessment order to be passed by the Commercial Tax Officer concerned, proceeded with the provisional assessment for the period from 1.4.2004 to 25.10.2004 and without even considering the objections filed by the petitioner, added a turn over of Rs. 13,49,545/- and passed a provisional assessment order on 6.12.2004 directing for payment of balance tax of Rs. 4,94,853/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of a writ petition. This Court while setting aside the order of the 4th respondent to the extent of inclusion of the turn over of Rs. 13,49,545/- ordered for issuance of a fresh show cause notice. In addition to this, this Court also directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Departmental authorities under the Act. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice and passed a final assessment order on 12.2.2008 demanding the balance amount of Rs, 3,87,625/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not file the proof of payment of 12.5% of disputed tax and on the ground that the appeal was not filed in Form No.I. Again the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. It also filed an application for stay before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the balance disputed tax. The 1st respondent, thereafter, passed an order 31.10.2008 rejecting the stay application. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the 1st respondent has rejected the stay application. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal, subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 13th March, 2009 _________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Note: Furnish c.c. in 3 days. B/o pnb