THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.24221 OF 2009 10-11-2009 BETWEEN; M/s.PJSC Stroytransgaz, 65, Novocheremoushkinskaya Stre. Mosow, C/o Mr.Deepak Chopra, India, rep. By its authorized signatory Mr.Platon Rychkov ...Petitioner vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Abids, Hyderabad and three others. ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.24221 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) A notice issued by the 1st respondent under Section 29 of the A.P.VAT Ac 2005 ( for short “ the 2005 Act”) to the 4th respondent directing the sai respondent to remit the arrears of tax dues in an amount of Rs.3,29,53,535/- fo the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, is assailed. The petitioner is a Public Joint Stock Company set up under the Laws o Russia, formed in 1990 and engaged in the business of construction of Oil an Gas Pipelines. It executed certain works for the 4th respondent and is registered dealer under the 2005 Act, on the rolls of the 1st respondent w.e. 01.10.2006. The audit of the petitioner’s assessment was taken up by the 2n respondent, who passed the order of assessment dated 08.08.2009 for the ta period 2007-08 after granting input tax credit, duly taking into account the ta deducted at source, the 2nd respondent determined the balance tax liability a Rs.2,65,31,061/- directing the amount to be paid within thirty(30) days from th date of the order. The order was served on 31-08-2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent on 30 09-2009 and along therewith a stay petition. The appeal and stay petition ar stated to be pending before the 3rd respondent. No orders on the stay petition ha been passed by the 3rd respondent. While so, a garnishee notice dated 09-10 2009, impugned herein, was issued under Section 29 of the 2005 Act. The petitioner contends that as the petitioner’s appeal before the 3r respondent instituted on 30-09-2009 and the stay petition filed therewith ar pending, it would be inequitable for the 1st respondent to issue the garnishe notice directing the 4th respondent to remit the tax liability determined. In the facts and circumstances of the case, after hearing the learne counsel for the petitioner-Sri G.Narendra Chetty and Sri P.Bala Varma, the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, w consider it appropriate to quash the garnishee notice issued by the 1 respondent, dated 09-10-2009. The 1st respondent is however at liberty to initiat appropriate processes including for recovery of the outstanding tax liability consequent on the outcome of the decision of the 3rd respondent in the sta application preferred by the petitioner in the appeal filed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. N order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 10th NOVEMBER 2009. Note: Wire at party’s cost. (B/O) TSNR