IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22719 of 2008 Between: M/s. Ind Bharath Energies Ltd., Plot No. 30-A, Road No.1, Film Nagar, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Director, Sri D. Madhusudhana Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Srinagar Colony Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), 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 order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.10,40,352/- in respect of the assessment year 2002-2003 under the APGST Act arising in pursuance of the stay rejection order of the third respondent dated 26.08.2008 passed in CCT's Ref. No. LIII(2)/598/2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : . THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22719 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.10,40,352/- for the assessment year 2002-2003, pursuant to the stay rejection order, dated 26.8.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent in CCT's Ref. No.LIII(2)/598/2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that challenging the orders passed by the 1st respondent levying the penalty, an appeal has been ﬁled before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. The stay applications ﬁled before the 2nd and 3rd respondents were rejected. 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 2nd respondent in respect of the penalty in question and the same is pending and that the stay applications ﬁled before respondents 2 and 3 were dismissed and at this junct ure, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the disputed penalty is recovered by initiating any coercive steps, 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 2nd 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 recovery of the disputed penalty, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty, within a period of six weeks 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 Ramesh Ranganathan Date:20th October, 2008 nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22719 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 20/10/2008