THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10775 OF 2009 Date:30.03.2011 Between: M/s.Maytas Infra Private Limited, H.No.6-3-1186/5/A, 3rd Floor, Amogh Plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, (Indirect Taxation) Mr.R.A.Swaroop .. Petitioner And The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10775 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement Wing, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in CCT’s REF.ENFT.No.B3/17/AC-III/2007-2008, dated 03.01.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and to declare that the petitioner is not liable for payment of the disputed penalty. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to set aside the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in T.M.P.No.46 of 2009 in T.A.No.75 of 2009 dated 04.03.2009. Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the revisional authority was swayed by the circular of the Commissioner in passing the revisional order. Learned counsel would submit that, while it is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no misuse of the C-Forms issued to them, the STAT has not examined the petitioner’s contention on merits while directing payment of 50% of the disputed tax as a condition to stay the recovery till disposal of the appeal before the STAT. Learned counsel would further submit that several writ petitions have been filed before this Court questioning the validity of the circular issued by the Commissioner of which this writ petition alone is listed today. On being asked whether the circular issued by the Commissioner would bind the STAT before whom the appeal is pending, Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy would fairly state that though the Commissioner’s circular may not be binding on them, the STAT was nonetheless required to adjudicate the petitioner’s contentions on its merits. Once it is accepted that the circular of the Commissioner is not binding on the STAT, and the STAT has the power, if it considers it appropriate, to set aside the revisional order on the ground that it was passed at the dictates of the Commissioner, or on being influenced by the observations made therein, we see no reason to defer hearing of this writ petition or to direct that this writ petition be listed along with the batch of the writ petitions wherein the Commissioner’s circular is under challenge. The STAT has exercised its discretion in passing a conditional order of stay. In exercise of its power of judicial review, to interfere with the interlocutory discretionary orders of Tribunals, this Court would ordinarily, not interfere save in those rare cases where the interlocutory order suffers from perversity. The STAT has clearly observed that they have not examined the contentions urged by the petitioner on merits since these are matters of examination only at the stage of final disposal of the appeal. As an interim measure, the petitioner has been given the benefit of stay on condition that they deposit 50% of the disputed penalty. While several contentions are putforth by Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy on merits, we see no reason to examine them in these proceedings as the substantive appeal is pending adjudication before the STAT. We find no error having been committed by the STAT in not examining the contentions urged on merits while deciding an application seeking interim stay. The interlocutory order passed by the STAT in T.M.P.No.46 of 2009 in T.A.No.75 of 2009 does not necessitate interference. Since the time prescribed by the STAT for payment of 50% of the disputed penalty has expired long ago, and this Court had passed an unconditional interim order of stay on 02.06.2009, we consider it appropriate to extend the time for payment of 50% of the disputed penalty, as directed by the STAT, by a further period of four weeks from today. On condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed penalty within four weeks, the interim order granted by the Tribunal shall continue till the disposal of the appeal in T.A.No.75 of 2009. We also request the STAT to consider the feasibility of hearing the appeal early. Subject to the above, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 30.03.2011 KH