IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18143 of 2008 Between: M/s. R.R.Stones Private Limited, 8-2-120/86/5, 'Sneha House', 4th Floor, Road No.3,Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Acc. & Fin.), Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Narayanaguda Circle, 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 will 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.21,30,202/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the CST Act arising in pursuance of the stay rejection orders of the third respondent dated 5.8.2008 passed in CCT's Ref.No. LV(1)/581/2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent or to pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: SRI A.V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18143 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-05, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, it has 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 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent also rejected the revision. Taking advantage of the same, steps are being taken for collection of the disputed tax. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and therefore, the action of respondents 2 and 3 in rejecting the stay petition and consequent action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax, is arbitrary and illegal and at this juncture, if the relief of stay is not granted and if the entire disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending 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 certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of the recovery of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid if any, 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 P.V. Sanjay Kumar Date: 21st August, 2008 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18143 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 21/08/2008