IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 4118 of 2008 Between: M/s. Jagathpriya Auto Agencies, CSI Bhavan, Nizamabad, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.Shikari Vishwanatham S/o.Sri Rajeshwar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally Station Road, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Warangal Division, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. 4 The Commercial TAx Officer-II, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(1)/721/2007 for assessment year 1999-2000 (APGST) as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SRINIVAS 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 demand notice issued by the first respondent dated 30.10.2007 passed in CCT’s Ref. No. LIII(1)/721/2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000 pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and insisting for payment of the disputed penalty of Rs.20,49,040/- as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed penalty pending appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the purchase and sale of motor vehicles and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the fourth respondent. While so, the third respondent after issuing show cause notice, levied penalty of Rs.20,49,040.00 by order dated 18.4.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein preferred Appeal to the second respondent and the second respondent confirmed the same by his order dated 16.4.2007. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 16.4.2007, passed by the second respondent, preferred appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also filed stay petition before the third first respondent, who by the order impugned herein has dismissed the stay application. Hence, the present writ petition. 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 an 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 imposed. 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 disputed penalty, 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 order as to costs. _________________________ SMT. T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________ G.ROHINI, J. February 28, 2008 MAS