IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.18755 of 2010 Between: Fenoplast Limited … Petitioner And Commercial Tax Officer and two others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.18755 OF 2010 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) Against the assessment order of the 1st respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, for the period 2006-07 under the Central Sales Tax Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Secunderabad Division in appeal No.S/6/2010-11/CST, dated 27.05.2010. Pending the appeal, the petitioner obtained stay of disputed tax on condition of depositing 50% of the disputed tax within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, dated 27.05.2010. Dissatisfied with the conditional order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed a revision before the 3rd respondent-Joint Commissioner. The 3rd respondent by the impugned order, dated 13.07.2010, rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner, confirming the conditional order passed by the 2nd respondent, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the 2nd respondent for expeditious disposal. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present writ petition is filed. The order so passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is a discretionary order and the same has been confirmed by the Joint Commissioner. When the appeal is pending before the appellate authority, this Court cannot go into the merits of the petition about the liability of the petitioner towards the payment of the tax due, as it is fairly well settled that when a statutory appeal is pending, a writ for the same purpose cannot be entertained and adjudicated by this Court. {See BMRDA v. Gokak Patel Volkart (1995(1) SCC 642)}. Having regard to the same, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the time granted to the petitioner for deposit of the 50% of the disputed tax, as ordered by the 2nd respondent, dated 27.05.2010, is extended till 20.09.2010. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 7th September 2010 lmv