IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10185 of 2010 Dated: 29.4.2010 Between: M/s. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt., Limited, Bakaram, Hyderabad, rep., by its Finance Manager, G. Muralidhar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhinagar Circle, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10185 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent in refusing to grant stay of collection of the disputed penalty for the period June, 2007 to October, 2007 and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the penalty order passed by the 1st respondent, it had preferred an appeal along with a stay application before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent rejected the stay application. Consequent to rejection of stay application, the 1st respondent is trying to initiate coercive steps for collection of the disputed penalty. 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 appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the 2nd respondent and consequent to the rejection of stay application, the 1st respondent is insisting for payment of the disputed penalty and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and the disputed penalty 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, we feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed penalty during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made clear that the penalty amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 29th April, 2010 Nn/pnb. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO :10185 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29/04/2010