IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 12896 OF 2010 Between: M/s. walnut Packaging Pvt. Ltd, A-49/1, IDA Kukatpally, Gandhinagar Ext., Hyderabad, Rep. By its Director Mr. M.Uday Kumar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Commercial Tax Officer (OFA). Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) The petitioner assails action of the third respondent in taking coercive steps for recovery of the disputed interest amount of Rs.68,324/- pursuant to the rejection order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the second respondent pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of printing material, cartoons, packing material, etc. The petitioner was granted incentive of sales tax holiday for a sum of Rs.1,37,90,250/- for a period of seven years from 18.9.1999 by the Industries Department. By virtue of introduction of A.P. VAT Act, 2005, the incentive was converted into deferment of sales tax and it is extended upto 30.4.2019. In the course of business, the petitioner company noticed that the sales tax deferment period for 22 months had expired in the month of February, 2007 and consequently, it voluntarily paid a sum of Rs.12,89,397/-. On 21.01.2009, the first respondent visited the business premises of the petitioner and for the delayed payment of the deferred sale tax, levied interest of Rs.68,324/- in VAT Form No.205 dated 6.5.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad, Rural Division, which was dismissed by order dated 12.11.2009. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also moved a stay petition before the second respondent, who rejected the same by order dated 11.12.2009. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent without considering the same, has refused to grant stay and pursuant thereto, the first respondent is contemplating to take coercive step for recovery of the disputed interest amount. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the interest amount. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the interest amount within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amount of interest. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao June 9, 2010 MAS