THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.13911 OF 2010 DT.21.06.2010 (PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) Between: M/s.Aster Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Secunderabad ……………….Petitioner Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad and three others. …………………..Respondents. O R D E R: The order under challenge in this writ petition is the arrears notice dated 14.06.2010 issued by the first respondent, consequent to the order dated 11.06.2010 rejecting stay pending appeal as passed by the second respondent, demanding payment of Rs.1,45,24,378/- towards penalty for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the APVAT & CST Acts on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Keesara Circle. They are engaged in the business of leasing of telecom sites with infrastructure facilities. They were assessed to tax by the assessing authority, and an order of penalty dated 22.04.2010 was passed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal, along with a stay petition, on 21.05.2010 before the second respondent. While the appeal against the order of penalty is said to be still pending, the stay petition was rejected by order dated 11.06.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, and the said revision application is pending as on date. The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite pendency of the revision application before the Additional Commissioner, the first respondent issued the arrears notice dated 14.10.2010 directing the petitioner to pay the penalty. On being asked by this Court why the petitioner had invoked parallel remedies, Sri Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that they have initiated steps to withdraw the revision application pending before the Additional Commissioner. Since a substantive appeal is pending before the second respondent, we do not propose to examine the merits of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. Ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty, under the impugned proceedings, on condition that the petitioner deposits 1/3rd of the penalty with respondent No.1 within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J., Dt.21.06.2010 tjs