IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18475 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, 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, Gaganavihar, 4th Floor, Nampally, 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 19-8-2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.R/35/2008-2009- VAT (Ex.P1) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the facts and law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18475 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order, dated 19.8.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.R/35/2008-2009-VAT. It is the case of the petitioner that against the order of penalty passed by the 2nd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 1st respondent. Along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed penalty was ﬁled. But the same was rejected by the 1st respondent vide order impugned herein. Taking advantage of the same, the steps are being taken by the 2nd respondent to collect the disputed penalty. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the same is pending and at this stage, if the stay is not granted and if the entire disputed penalty is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending 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 certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of the recovery of the disputed penalty, pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty, within a period of three months from today. However, it is made clear that the penalty amount paid if any, 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 P.V. Sanjay Kumar Date: 27th August, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18475 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 27/08/2008