IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 5391 of 2008 Between: M/s ICOMM Tele Limited, Trandset Towers, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. rep. by its Deputy Manager (Accounts), Sri V.P.R. Prasad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU), Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), 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 order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.1,02,13,969/- for the tax period from April 2006 to November 2007 arising in pursuance of the stay rejection proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.02.2008 passed in Appeal No.S/67/2007-2008-VAT pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent or to pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following ORDER: (Per BPR.J) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondents. At their request, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. The first respondent passed Assessment order for payment of Value Added Tax in Form VAT-305, dated 31-12-2007 against the petitioner, levying tax to the tune of Rs.1,02,13,969/-. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent, which is registered as Appeal No.S/67/2007- 2008-VAT. Along with the said appeal, the petitioner also filed an interlocutory application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. However, the said stay application was dismissed by the second respondent-appellate authority. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the subject matter, we direct the second respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, on merits, as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the appeal, there shall be stay of collection of disputed tax, subject to condition of the petitioner depositing half of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from today. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO ---------------------------------------- JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU DATED, 13TH MARCH, 2008. Note: Operative portion by Wire at the party’s costs. (BO) .MSNR.