HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 20121,20138 and 20140 of 2009 Date: 26.10.2009 BETWEEN: M/s. Vishnutek Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam. Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Visakhapatnam Division, Visakhapatnam and others. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S. Dwarakanath Counsel for the respondents: Sri Krishna Koundinya, Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.20121, 20138 and 20140 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Since common questions arise for consideration in all the three writ petition, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. As the facts in Writ Petition No.20121 of 2009 are illustrative of the facts stated in all the three writ petitions, it would suffice to note the facts stated therein. The petitioner, a dealer under the A.P.VAT Act, 2005 on the rolls of the 1st respondent, was issued show cause notice dated 15.11.2007 informing him that the assessment made on 12.9.2006 was proposed to be revised under Section 21(6) of the A.P. VAT Act read with Rule 59(4) of the A.P. VAT Rules, 2005. Thereafter, a revised show cause notice was issued on 17.1.2008 and the order passed on 22.1.2008. This order was set aside in W.P. No.5223 of 2008 and the matter was remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed an order afresh on 11.4.2008 confirming the levy. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal, along with an application for stay, to the 2nd respondent who, by order dated 18.8.2008, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, which is said to be pending as on date. While matters stood thus, the 1st respondent proposed to levy penalty under Section 53(3) of the VAT Act. The levy of penalty at 100% of the tax due was confirmed by order dated 27.1.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent on 18.2.2009 who, by order dated 28.2.2009, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapantam and a stay petition before the third respondent who, by order dated 11.9.2009, refused to grant stay. The petitioner has questioned the order rejecting stay on several grounds including a challenge to the vires of Rule 25(8) of the A.P. VAT Rules, 2005. While the petitioner has an immensely arguable case on merits we, however, do not propose to examine the contention urged before us in as much as these are all matters for examination in the appeals pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The penalty in dispute in all the three appeals is for Rs.5.25 crores. Ends of justice would be met if, pending disposal of the appeals by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays Rs.1.50 crores (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) in three monthly installments, of Rs.50.00 lakhs each, on 30.11.2009, 31.12.2009 and 31.1.2010. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the vires of Rule 25(8) as the petitioner has expressed his desire to pursue the appellate remedy. The writ petitions are disposed of as above, after hearing both Sri S.Dwarakanath learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Kaundinya, Learned Special Standing Counsel for commercial taxes. No costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 26.10.2009 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Furnish C.C. in three days B/o Pnb/asp