IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19780 of 2008 Between: M/s.Mani Coffee Works, 15/65, Gandhi Chowk, Guntakal, rep.by its partner Sr.V.Venkata Subbaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntakal 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kurnool 3 The Additional 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 penalty of Rs.1,28,472/- for the assessment year 2004-05(APGST) arising in pursuance of the appeal order of the second respondent dated 31.12.2007 passed in Appeal No.39/2007-08 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19780 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to grant stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs.1,28,472/- for the assessment year 2004-05(APGST) pursuant to the order of the second respondent, dated 31.12.2007 in Appeal No.39/2007-08, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent levying penalty of Rs.1,28,472/-, an appeal was ﬁled before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and an application before the 3rd respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed penalty. But the 3rd respondent rejected the same. Now, steps are being taken for collection of the disputed penalty and in such course, a garnishee notice has also been issued. Heard the learned Counsel 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 Tribunal and the same is pending and that the stay petition moved before the 3rd respondent was rejected and pursuant to the same, a notice has also been issued to the petitioner and in these circumstances of the case, if the stay is not granted and if the entire disputed penalty is collected, 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 Tribunal, 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 recovery of the disputed penalty for the assessment year in question, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty, within a period of eight weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the penalty 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 Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 12th September, 2008 Note: Issue CC by Wednesday (BO) Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:19780 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 12/09/2008