HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 23247 of 2009 Date: 29.10.2009 BETWEEN: M/s. Parle Agro (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer (Intl), Abids Division, Hyderabad. and others. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23247 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Assailing the notice dated 21.10.2009, whereby they were directed to pay penalty of Rs.22,70,386/- for the assessment year 2008-09 under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, manufactures fruit drinks sold in the market under the brand names ‘Appy’, Grapo’, Appy fizz’, ‘Grapo fizz’, ‘LMN acqua’ etc. They claim that these drinks are made out of natural fruits and that the content of preservatives, such as Co2 which are added to the drink, is not very high. The petitioner was assessed to tax on these products at 12.5% under Schedule V of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner which is said to be pending as on date. While matters stood thus, penalty was levied on the petitioner for under-declaration of tax on the ground that they had paid 4% tax, treating the goods sold by them as falling under Entry No.107 of Schedule IV and not under Schedule V of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which is said to be pending as on date. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, however, rejected the petitioner’s application for stay by order dated 3.10.2009. The petitioner claims to have received a copy of this order on 21.10.2009 and is said to have preferred a revision thereagainst to the 5th respondent on 24.10.2009. The revision is said to have been listed for hearing on 13.11.2009. Since the petitioner’s revision is pending before the 5th respondent, ends of justice would be met if, pending disposal of the revision, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty till disposal of the revision and communication of the order to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of after hearing Sri T. Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. No costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 29.10.2009 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. B/o Pnb/mrkr