IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3285 of 2009 Between: M/s.Sirpur Paper Mills Limited, Sirpur-Kaghaznagar Adilabad District, rep.by its Chief Administrative Officer CH.Seetharamaiah, S/o.Late Venkatappaiaha aged 61 years, R/o.Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax building, Nampally Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 3 The Assistant commissioner (Commercial Taxes) LTU,Abids Division, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or orders Direction or directions to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.1.2009 in Appeal No.A/93/08- 09/V whereby he rejected the stay petition of the petitioner relating to the penalty of Rs.21,61,499/- without application of mind and without assigning any valid reasons and to issue a consequential direction to teh 3rd respondents not to proceed to recover the amount of penalty from the petitioner in pursuance to the notice dated 17.2.2009 in Rc.Ac.(CT)LTU/08-09 pending disposal of the Appeal before the 2nd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned standing counsel, Sri Krishna Kaundinya appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 30-01-2009 whereby his prayer before the appellate authority with regard to stay of recovery of tax has been rejected. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that while rejecting the application, the appellate authority has not assigned any reason. He has drawn our attention to the contents of para 2 of the impugned order which does not give any reason for which the application was rejected. The line which pertains to the reasoning part is as under: “the contentions raised re examined and found not tenable. So, I find no case to grant stay of collection of disputed tax…………” In the circumstances, it has been submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that as there were no justifiable reasons for grant of stay, the appellate authority has not granted any stay and the said fact is reflected in the aforesaid sentence. We have heard the learned advocates and have considered the facts. In our opinion, the impugned order cannot be said to be a reasoned or speaking order. In our opinion, the authority ought to have given reasons for which the application has been rejected. Unless the reasons are recorded, it would be difficult for the higher authority to decide as to what factors weighed in the mind of the appellate authority to reject the application. In the circumstances, we quash the impugned order as it is not a speaking order. It is pertinent to note that the learned standing counsel has submitted that so as to expedite the case, it would be possible for the appellate Deputy Commissioner to hear the application on 03-03-2009. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner waives service of notice for the said hearing and agrees that the petitioner’s representative would represent the case of the petitioner before the authority on 03-03-2009 at 11.00 AM so that the proceedings can be decided as soon as possible. During the pendency of the aforesaid stay application, no coercive action shall be taken for recovery of the amount covered under the impugned order. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. __________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 19th February, 2009. ks