IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13619 of 2009 Between: M/s. Startek Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A-24, Nacharam, Hyderabad - 500 076, Rep by its Managing Director, Mr. Imran Suleman Ali ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) (legal), O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Sarrornagar Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Nacharam Circle, 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 an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned proceedings order No. LIII (4)/176/2009, dated 12.05.2009, issued by the 1st respondent, as illegal unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dt.12.5.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad, the petitioner has approached this Court. By virtue of the impugned order, the application for stay of recovery of tax during the pendency of the appeal has been rejected. We have heard the learned Advocates and perused the record as well as the order of assessment. Upon perusal of the aforestated orders and upon hearing the learned Advocates, we find that certain disputed questions of fact are involved in this petition which can be decided only in the appeal. As the appeal is pending before the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Hyderabad, we do not want to go into the facts of the case. In our opinion, it would not be just and proper to grant stay of recovery at this juncture. However, if an application is filed for early hearing of the appeal by the petitioner, we are sure that after considering the facts of the case, the STAT shall pass appropriate orders. Needless to say that if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, the excess amount of tax, which might be paid during the pendency of the appeal, shall be returned to the petitioner along with interest, in accordance with law. We do not find any substance in the petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 09.7.2009 bnr