IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4007 of 2010 Between: M/s. Sarang Hitech Cold Storage Private Limited, rep., by its Managing Director Sri P.R. Somani. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4007 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2005-06 pending disposal of the appeals filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Hyderabad. The case of the petitioner is that the nature of business that is being carried on by the petitioner is ‘Cold Storage Chain Facility for storing Agricultural Produce’, but the 1st respondent passed the order impugned herein having held that it was a Cold Storage plant and the certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Government of A.P. was meant only to claim subsidy and cannot be the basis for allowing deduction under Section 80 IB (11) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, Hyderabad and the same is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed a petition before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed demand, but the same was rejected. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the 1st respondent has relied upon the definition of “Cold Chain Facility rendered in Ambika Sheet Grah (P) Ltd. (2008) 8DTR Tribunal Agra Bench, and without following the definition contained in the statute and therefore, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the appellate authority has to consider the matter in extension. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the petitioner had stated before the NABARD, that it was intending to start a cold storage unit and a cold chain facility. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the issue involved in the matter has to be adjudicated by the appellate Authority, 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 tax, pending disposal of the appeal subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 1/4th (One Fourth) of the disputed tax on or before 31st March, 2010. However, it is made clear that the amount paid if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. It is further directed that the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of two months thereafter. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 5th March, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4007 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 05/03/2010