IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11753 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sainath Constructions, Begumpet, Hyderabad. rep by its Managing Director Sri K. Premsagar Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) CCT's Office, II Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, CCT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Ameerpet, 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 15-4- 2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No. RV/7 & 8/2008-09 (Ex.P1) as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary of the facts and law and to pass such other order or further orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the second respondent in Appeal No. RV/7 & 8/2008-09, and insisting for payment of the disputed tax of Rs.55,382/-for the year 2005-2006, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed penalty pending appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the construction and sale of flats on its own land and under the honest belief that it is not covered by the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, it did not get registered under the Act. The petitioner was assessed under the VAT by the 3rd respondent, which was also confirmed by the 2nd respondent on contest by the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner paid taxes. While so, the third respondent initiated penal action under the VAT and imposed 25% of the tax due, as penalty, under Sec. 53(1)(ii) of the VAT for the year 2005-2006, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed stay petition, which was rejected vide the order impugned. The petitioner, aggrieved thereby, preferred revision before the first respondent assailing the rejection of stay by the second respondent, but since there is imminent threat of coercive steps, the present writ petition is filed. 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, 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 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. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. June 10, 2008 Copy tomorrow //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}