IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19932 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sidhi Jewellers, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Mr. Suresh C. Jain. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, M.J. Market Road, 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 disputed tax of Rs.19,65,895/- for the assessment year 1997-1998 under the APGST Act even during pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal through the impugned notices dated 15.07.2008 and 13.08.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and high- handed and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from recovery of the disputed tax of RS.19, 65,895/- for the assessment year 1997-1998 under the APGST Act pending disposal of the appeal in T.A. No. 356 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19932 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 disputed tax of Rs.19,65,895/- for the assessment year 1997- 1998 under the APGST Act, through the impugned notices, dated 15.07.2008 and 13.08.2008, during pendency of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, as illegal, arbitrary and high-handed and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from collecting the disputed tax. It is the case of the petitioner that questioning the revision orders passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 11.12.2003, an appeal has been preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also moved a petition seeking stay of recovery of the disputed tax. But the Tribunal rejected the same. Now, steps are being taken for collection of the disputed tax and in such course, the 1st respondent also issued the notices impugned. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 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 and the same is pending and that the stay petition moved before the Tribunal was rejected and taking advantage of the same, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed tax and in these circumstances of the case, if the stay is not granted and if the disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, 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 for the assessment year in question, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of eight weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the 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: 12th September, 2008 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19932 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 12/09/2008