IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 26511 of 2008 Between: M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited, 126, M.G. Road, (Near Paradise Circle), Secunderabad, rep. by its Manager-Accounts, Sri R.P. Sarathy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) VMU-II, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 8,12,894/- for the tax period April, 2006 to March, 2007 under the APVAT Act arising in pursuance of the stay rejection order of the third respondent dated 24-10-2008 in CCT's Ref.No. LV(4)/686/2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.26511 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.2008 of the 3rd respondent, whereby the 3rd respondent has rejected a revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 19.07.2008, declining grant of stay pending an appeal before the 2nd respondent, preferred by the petitioner against the order of the 1st respondent-assessing authority, dated 20.02.2008. It requires to be noticed that by the order impugned, the 3rd respondent declined to grant stay by recording as under: “I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commercial Tax Officer and there are no valid grounds for grant of stay of collection of tax.” Though we are not inclined to interfere with the exercise of the revisional discretion by the 3rd respondent against an interlocutory order of the 2nd respondent declining to grant stay to the petitioner pending the appeal before the 2nd respondent, we would dispose of the writ petition observing that the reason recorded by the 3rd respondent in the order, dated 24.10.2008, declining to interfere with the order of the assessing authority, namely, that the 3rd respondent does not find any infirmity with the order of the assessing authority-Commercial Tax Officer, should not be understood or construed by the 2nd respondent-appellate authority as an expression by the 3rd respondent on merits of the petitioner’s appeal and are to be construed as a mere, prima facie, expression of opinion by the 3rd respondent in the course of disposing of a revision against an interlocutory order. The 2nd respondent would proceed to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal against the order of assessment, dated 20.02.2008, on the merits of the appeal and without in any manner being influenced by any observations made by the 3rd respondent in the order, dated 24.10.2008. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 05.12.2008 v v