IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15086 of 2008 Between: M/s. Perfect Facbricators Plot No.5 Phool Bagh Check Post Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Rep.by its Propreietor Sri,S.Jayarami Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Addittional Commissioner(CT) (Legal) CCT'office II Floor Nampally,Hyderabad 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT) Punjagutta Division CCT Complex,Nampally,Hyderabad 3 The Commerical Tax Officer Bowenapally Circle,Ameerpet,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 direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt.24.6.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.B/54/BV/39/2008-9 Dt.24-6- 2008 (Common order for 3years) (Ex.PI) as illegal arbitrary unjust and contrary to the facts and Law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents.:SRI A.V. KRISHNA KAUNDINYA, SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15086 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the order, dt.24.6.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.B/54/BV/38/BV/39/2008-09, as illegal and arbitrary. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment made by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent rejected the stay petition. Hence, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent and the same is pending. But however, on the apprehension that the 3rd respondent would take coercive steps for collection of the disputed tax, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against assessment order passed by the 3rd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of collection of the disputed tax is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax in question is effected during the pendency of the appeal, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax till disposal of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six (6) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount, if any already paid, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 15th July, 2008 Nn. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:15086 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 15/07/2008