THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NOs.26296 and 26421 OF 2009 08-12-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Veekay Oil Products, Piduguralla ...Petitioner (petitioner in both writ petitions) vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla and others ...Respondents (Respondents in both writ petitions) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NOs.26296 and 26421 OF 2009 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per RR,J) Both writ petitions involve similar questions of law and have bee filed by the very same petitioner. They were heard together and are bein disposed of by this common order, after hearing both M/s.S.Krishna Murth and S.Suri Babu, Advocates for the petitioners and Sri P.Balaji Varma, th learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It would suffice for the purpose of disposal of both writ petitions, if th facts in W.P.No.26296 of 2009 are taken note of. The relief sought for i this writ petition is for grant of stay of collection of the disputed tax o Rs.4,62,293/- arising pursuant to the order of the 2nd responden dated 29-08-1996 for the assessment year 1992-93 (APGST) pendin disposal of TRC No.23 of 2004. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in the business o manufacture and marketing of Sunflower Oil and Cakes and is a assessee on the rolls of the 2nd respondent who, by proceeding dated 29-08-1996, made a best judgment assessment for th assessment years 1992-93 (APGST) on a turnover of Rs.94,44,070/- Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3r respondent who, by proceedings dated 09-06-1998, affirmed the orde passed by the 2nd respondent and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieve thereby, the petitioner preferred a further appeal to the STAT, in TA No.683 of 1998, which was dismissed by order dated 16-04-2003 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed TRC No.23 of 2004 and thi Court admitted the TRC on 30.12.2004. The said TRC is stated to b pending on the file of this Court as on date. While matters stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued notic dated 24-09-2009 directing the petitioner to pay tax of Rs.15,97,011/ for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 within ten (10) days Thereupon, the petitioner, by letter dated 03-10-2009, requested th 2nd respondent to grant one month time for submitting the require information since he was undergoing cardiac treatment and fo diabetes. Thereafter notice dated 14-10-2009 was issued calling upo the petitioner to pay arrears of tax and the petitioner was informed tha in case he failed to pay the tax, action would be initiated under th Revenue Recovery Act. The 1st respondent issued demand notic dated 23-10-2009, which was received by the petitioner on 24.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of tax of Rs.15,97, 011/ within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. For th assessment year 1991-92 TRC No.264 of 2003, which was admitte on 30.12.2003, is still pending before this Court. As both TRCs are pending for both the assessment years 1991-9 and 1992-93, we consider it appropriate to grant stay of recovery o the disputed tax for these two assessment years subject to th condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax for eac of these two years within eight (8) weeks from today. Amount, if any paid shall be given credit to. Subject to the conditions aforementione the impugned order to the extent they were made applicable for th assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93 are set aside. Both these writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. In th circumstances, without costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 8th DECEMBER 2009. TSNR