IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18391 of 2008 Between: M/s Kedia Allys Limited, D.No.19-2-226, Bahaddurpura, Hyderabad, rep by its Director, Sri Jitendra Kedia. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Legal, (FAC), Office of the Commissioner (CT), Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax officer, Lad Bazar 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, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the part of the 1st respondent in rejecting the Revision (Stay) Application ﬁled by the petitioner in his proceedings in CCT's Ref.No.L.III(2)/575/2008, dt. 5-8-2008 (ﬁled as Annexure P1) pending appeal before the 2nd respondent in respect of the tax period April, 2005, to December, 2005 as illegal, arbitrary besides being quite contrary to the provisions of the A.P.VAT Act, 2005 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAISWAL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18391 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order, dated 5.8.2008 passed by the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that against the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent-Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending. The petitioner ﬁled an application before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. But the 1st respondent rejected the same. Having aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and at this stage, if the stay is not granted and if the entire disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a ﬁt case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of the recovery of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid if any, 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 P.V. Sanjay Kumar Date: 25th August, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18391 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 25/08/2008