IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6 3 5 3 OF 2010 Between : M/s. Saravabhava Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.444, Keshavanagar, Vishnulekha Plaza, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Director, Sri G.Murali. … Petitioner V/ s. The Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Raji Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GOVT.PLEADER FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Order of the Division Bench follows on 2nd page THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6 3 5 3 OF 2010 O R D E R : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari) Seeking mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in rejecting the stay application vide proceedings dated 23-02- 2010 for the period 2007-08 as arbitrary, contrary to law and consequently to grant stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs.4,76,114/- for the assessment year 2007-08, pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the business of execution of works contracts and registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under the AP Value Added Tax Act 2005. It is stated that the first respondent has levied penalty under section 53 (1) (ii) of AP Value Added Tax Act, which is 25% of the tax due of Rs.19,04,458/- for the assessment year 2007-08 without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard, confirmed the proposed penalty through proceedings dated 22-12-2009. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent under section 32 of the AP Value Added Tax Act on 04- 2-2010 and also moved an application seeking stay of collection of disputed penalty of Rs.4,76,114-00 pending disposal of the appeal. However, the second respondent rejected the stay application summarily holding that neither the petitioner nor the authorised representative had appeared before the second respondent when the matter was posted on 19-2-2010. It is further stated that the second respondent failed to notice that the counsel has appeared on the said date of hearing but however for the reasons best known to the second respondent, he who could not take up the matter for hearing on the said date stating that this penalty stay petition would be considered along with the tax appeal which was filed by the petitioner on 28-1-2010. It is also stated that to the petitioner’s counsel utter surprise, the petitioner has received the stay rejection proceedings of the second respondent dated 23-2-2010 on 08-3-2010. 3. It is stated that though against the stay rejection order of the second respondent, a revision lies before the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal under the provisions of section 32 of the Act but however the revisional authority is rejecting the stay application in a routine manner without assigning any reason and hence filing of revision application before revisional authority is only a mere formality but rejecting the stay application and in the meanwhile the first respondent is threatening to take coercive steps for recovery of the above disputed demand and also threatened to take action under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act. Hence, the writ petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the tsecond respondent, but the second respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner’s counsel was present. ultimately the second respondent without considering the same dismissed the stay application. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed penalty within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and the first respondent is directed not to take coercive step for collection/recovery of the disputed penalty, pending finalisation of the appeal by the second respondent – Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed off at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ____________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHAN RAO 25-III-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6 3 5 3 OF 2010 ORDER of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari Circulation Entry No. 5 1 Computer No.43 Court Master: I s L Date: 25-III-2010