IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19271 of 2008 Between: M/s Yograj Constructions, Koti, Hyderabad. Rep by its Manager, G.Ramesh Kumar, S/o. late G.Satyanarayana. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Commissioner, (CT) Legal, 2nd Floor, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Opp.Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Dy.Commissioner(CT) Secunderabad Division, 5th Floor, Commercial Tax Complex, Opp.Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Commercial Tax officer, Abids Circle, 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 to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the 1st rspondent i n CCT's Ref.No.LV(1)/612/2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural Justice and fair play and consequently set aside the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP 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 : 19271 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per T HE HON’BLE MRS. JUST ICE T .MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in rejecting to grant stay of collection of penalty of Rs.14,737/- pending appeal before the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed penalty pending appeal, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. According to the petitioner 3rd respondent erroneously viewed that the petitioner is liable to be registered under the APVAT Act 2005 and passed assessment order dated 5.3.2008 for the assessment year 2007-08 taking the income of Rs.4,71,579/-, derived by the petitioner towards the sale of semi residential complex, as sale of goods i.e., as works contract. The 3rd respondent also imposed penalty of Rs.14,737/- by order dated 26.3.2008. As against imposition of penalty, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal along with stay application before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent dismissed the stay application. The petitioner ﬁled a further application before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed penalty pending the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The said application also came to be dismissed. Hence the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that demanding payment of penalty, pending the appeal, is contrary to law. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending Appeal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount pending appeal. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 8-9-2008 Asp/gs