IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15124 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sree Satya Enterpriss, 4-47,Mancherial, Adilabad District, rep.by its Managing patner Smt.D.Sujatha ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, Mancherial 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal (FAC) Andhra Pradesh 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 direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.19,56,639/- for the assessment year 2001-02 (APGST) arising in pursuance of the stay rejection order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 4.6.2008 passed in TMP.No.153/2008 in TA.No.117 of 2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KAUNDINYA, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15124 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.19,56,639/- for the assessment year 2001-02 in pursuance of the stay rejection order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 4.6.2008 in TMP.No.153/2008 in TA.No.117 of 2008. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. But the Tribunal dismissed the stay petition. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the collection of the disputed tax is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax in question is effected, during the pendency of the appeal, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax till disposal of the appeal pending before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount, if any already paid, 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: 15th July, 2008 Nn. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:15124 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 15/07/2008