IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14076 of 2009 Between: M/s. Suchirindia Developers (Pvt.) Ltd, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director, Mr. Y. Kiran Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, 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 2nd respondent in rejecting the stay application through the impugned proceedings dated 27.6.2009 which was served on the petitioner on 13.7.2009 and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated 10.7.2009 directing payment of the balance disputed tax within a period of three days even before service of the order of the 2nd respondent and contemplating to take coercive steps without allowing even a breathing time for carrying the matter in revision before the Joint Commissioner./Additional Commissioner under the Scheme of the Act as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.24,59,923/- from out of the total disputed tax of Rs.28,11,341/- for the tax period March 2008 to October 2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and also declare that even assuming but not conceding that the supplies made to sub-contractors on cost recovery basis amounts to sale, the petitioner is entitled for input tax credit in respect of the goods which were locally purchased by the petitioner from registered VAT dealers. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. BALAJI VARMA, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of notice is waived by Sri Balaji Varma, learned Standing Counsel 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 dt.27.6.2009 whereby the stay application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The said stay application has been filed for stay of recovery of tax during the pendency of the appeal. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the impugned order dt.27.6.2009 whereby the stay application has been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that no reason of whatsoever type has been assigned in the order while rejecting the application. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the impugned order, we also do not find any reason stated by the authority for rejecting the stay application. In our opinion, the concerned authority, namely, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) – respondent No.2, ought to have given reasons for which he was not inclined to grant the stay application. In our opinion, the impugned order suffers from vice of non-application of mind and therefore we quash and set aside the impugned order. It has been agreed by the learned Advocates that the stay application would be heard afresh on 27.7.2009 at 11.00 a.m., and a representative of the petitioner would remain present before respondent No.2 on 27.7.2009 to represent its case so that the stay application can be heard. The learned Advocate for the petitioner waives service of notice of the said hearing. In the circumstances, respondent No.2 shall hear the stay application of the petitioner afresh and decide the same in accordance with law and shall record reasons for arriving at his conclusion. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 16.7.2009 bnr Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B.O) bnr