IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13826 of 2008 Between: M/s. DLF Laing O' Rourke (India) Ltd., H.I.G., B-140, A.P.H.B., Gachibowli, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Manager Finance & Accounts, Sri S. Subramanian. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, CCT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Assistant Commissioner (CT), Audit VAT Management Unit- II, Hyderabad Rural 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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 27.06.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.R/28/2008- 2009-VAT (Ex. P1) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary of the facts and law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents : SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13826 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the order dated 27.6.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in appeal No.R/28/2008-2009-VAT, as illegal and arbitrary. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 1st respondent and along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the tax was filed, but the 1st respondent rejected the said application. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against the assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent, an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the collection of the disputed tax is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax in question is effected during the pendency of the appeal before the 1st respondent, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the 1st respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax till disposal of the appeal pending before the 1st respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount, if any already paid, 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: 1st July, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) Nn. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:13826 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 01/07/2008