IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.25669 of 2008 Between: M/s. Bharat Industrial & Engineering Corporation, 55-1/39, Plot No. 30 & 31, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Maninder Singh Kandhari, S/o. Dharshan Singh, Age 35 years, R/o. Vijayawada. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int.) LTU, No. II Division, Vijayawada, D.NO. 74-15-1, Venamalakuduru Road, Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada. ...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 any appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus and declare the action of the second respondent in rejecting the Stay Petition filed by the petitioner by passing an ex parte order vide Appeal No. VJ II/64/2008-2009 Dated 31-10-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural justice and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and grant the consequential relief by granting Stay of collection of the balance of disputed tax of Rs.15,48,964/- from the petitioner pending disposal of the first appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent and issue any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.DANTU.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.25669 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri Dantu Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The grievance of the petitioner is against the recovery being affected pending the substantive appeal on the file of the second respondent, as against the order impugned and rejected to grant stay. Though substantial amounts have been paid, the respondents are proceeding to recover the same. Hence, the Writ Petition. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that since the main appeal itself is pending on the file of the second respondent, we refrain to go into the merits or objections raised by the respondents. These are all matters to be gone into in the main appeal. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, there shall be stay pending the appeal subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits half of the disputed tax within a period of six {6} weeks from today. It is needless to mention that any amount, which is already paid, shall be given credit to. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ______________________ (VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J) 24th November 2008 RRB