IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4876 of 2010 Between: M/s. Indus Towers Limited, Formerly known as Indus Infratel Ltd., Usha Jubilee Building, 3rd Floor, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by Mr. Janardhan Singh, Asst. Manager Finance. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad, and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 04.02.2010 passed by the second respondent and the consequential arrears notice dated 24.02.2010 issued by the first respondent demanding to pay an amount of Rs.17,05,00,000/- towards penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to restrain the respondents from taking coercive steps for recovery of the said amount for the period of 2008-2009, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing infrastructure support to the telecom operators and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under the provisions of APVAT Act and CST Act. The petitioner was issued with a notice dated 23.07.2009 proposing to impose a penalty of Rs.17,05,00,000/- under Sec. 10A(1) of CST Act, on the ground that it had misused Form ‘C’ and has not utilised the goods for the purpose mentioned under Sec. 8(3) of CST Act, to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 2.9.2009. However, penalty order came to be passed on 5.10.2009, aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with stay petition before the third respondent. During the course of personal hearing, the third respondent rejected the stay petition by order dated 30.11.2009. The petitioner, aggrieved thereby, preferred revision along with a stay petition, before the second respondent assailing the rejection of stay by the third respondent. The second respondent by the order impugned herein, has rejected the application filed seeking to stay the recovery of penalty for the period 2008-2009. Pursuant to the rejection of the stay petition, the first respondent has issued arrears notice dated 24.2.2010 requiring the petitioner to pay the said sum. 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 pending appeal and revision, the issuance of impugned notice demanding to pay the penalty 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 on or before 31.3.2010 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. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari, J. ___________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. March 4, 2010 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. //BO// MAS