IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10378 of 2010 Dated: 29.4.2010 Between: M/s Kirby Building Systems India Limited, Pashamylaram, Medak, rep., by P. Veera Reddy, DGM – Indirect Taxation. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Asst. Commissioner (CT) LTU, Charminar Division Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10378 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order dated 30.3.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent in CCT.Ref.L.III(2)/116/2010 and the consequential demand notice dated 15.4.2010 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps for collection of any amount pending disposal of the appeal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent dated 16.10.2009, the petitioner had preferred an appeal along with stay application before the 3rd respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). But the 3rd respondent rejected the stay application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision application before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent also rejected to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax vide the order impugned herein, consequent to which, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 15.4.2010 demanding payment 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 appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the 3rd respondent and at this juncture, if the stay is not granted and the 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 3rd respondent, we feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax during the pendency of the appeal before the 3rd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 29th April, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO :10378 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29/04/2010