IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WPMP NO. 35165 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO : 23260 of 2009 Between: M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Sy.No.129/2, Kandlakoya village, Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District Rep. By its Assistant Manager – Legal, Sri G.S. Srinivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madhapur Circle, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : COMMON ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the third respondent in CCT’s Ref. No. LIII(4)/400/09 insisting for payment of the disputed penalty of Rs.22,59,798/-for the period from April, 2005 to September, 2007, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed penalty pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed the above writ petition while the Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to amend the prayer to the effect that the appeal is pending before the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and not before the second respondent, inasmuch as during pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent has dismissed the appeal. The petitioner is engaged in the business of marketing of consumer goods such as cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, ice creams, tea, coffee, etc. and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the fourth respondent under AP VAT Act, 2005 and CST Act. The petitioner was assessed under the VAT by the first respondent by order dated 29.3.2009 and paid the entire tax of Rs.1,06,85,437/- and interest of Rs.14,00,384/- under protest. Aggrieved by such assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed on 29.11.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the mater in further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in T.A. No. 185 of 2009. While the matter stood thus, the first respondent initiated penal action under the VAT Act and imposed 10% of the tax, as penalty, under Sec. 53(1) of the VAT by order dated 30.04.2009, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed stay petition, which was rejected vide order dated 18.9.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision petition before the third respondent, who by order dated 14.10.2009 has dismissed the stay petition. Pursuant to the dismissal of the stay petition by the third respondent, the fourth respondent has issued notice dated 24.10.2009 demanding the petitioner to pay the disputed penalty within three days. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. The affidavit filed in support of the Miscellaneous Petition shows that during pendency of the writ petition, the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner before the second respondent was dismissed by order dated 30.11.2009 and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Hence, an amendment is sought to the effect that the appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and not before the second respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending appeal, the issuance of impugned notice demanding to pay the penalty is contrary to law. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent is dismissed and since the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Sale Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, the amendment sought for in WPMP No. 35165 is ordered. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay had been granted pending Appeal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the penalty. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the penalty on or before 31.03.2010 and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount pending appeal, before the Sales Ta Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad. 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 costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 2, 2010 Copy with a week. //BO// MAS