IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH 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 : 22547 of 2008 Between: M/s. Kesoram Cements, ( A Division of Kesoram Industries Limited), Basant Nagar, Karimnagar District, Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Mr.O.P. Sharma, Vice President (Commercial). ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. Commissioner (CT) Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Warangal. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, O/o. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the balance disputed penalty of Rs.11,18,723/- out of the total disputed penalty of Rs.14,91,631/- for the tax period 2006-2007 even during the pendency of stay application before the 3rd respondent through his urgent notice dt. 26.9.08 and contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed penalty as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed penalty of Rs.11,18,723/- out of the total disputed penalty of Rs.14,91,631/- for the tax period 2006-2007 in pursuance of his urgent notice dt.26.9.2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY 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 : 22547 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the balance disputed penalty of Rs.11,18,723/- out of the total disputed penalty of Rs.14,91,631/- for the tax period 2006-2007 through his urgent notice dated 26.9.2008, during the pendency of the stay application before the 3rd respondent as illegal, and arbitrary and set aside the same, and to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed penalty, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that challenging the orders passed by the 1st respondent in levying the disputed tax, penalty and interest, appeals were ﬁled before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeals. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled further appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same are pending. The petitioner also ﬁled stay petitions before the 3rd respondent and the same are also pending. While so, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the balance disputed amounts through the impugned notice. Hence, the present writ petition has been ﬁled seeking to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed penalty. 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the penalty in question and the same is pending and that the application seeking stay of recovery of the penalty is also pending before the 3rd respondent and at this juncture, the action of the 1st respondent in issuing notice is arbitrary and illegal and in these circumstances, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the balance disputed penalty is recovered in pursuance of the notice impugned, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal before Tribunal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the disputed penalty, 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 balance disputed penalty, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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:20th October, 2008 NOT E: Communicate by wire at party’s costs. (BO) nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22547 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 20/10/2008