IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3538 of 2010 Between: M/s. K.V.R.R. Foods Private Limited, Muthukur village, Punganur Taluq, Chittoor District, Rep.by its Director Sri K.Dharma Tej ..... PETITIONER AND Commercial Tax Officer, Madanapalli and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the second respondent in Appeal No. 117/2007-08(CTR) for the assessment year 2006-2007 under APVAT Act as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and to consequently grant stay of collection of the disputed tax pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of mango pulp and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent has completed the assessment under APVAT Act for the Assessment year 2006-2007 by order dated 20.08.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and by order dated 30.9.2008, the second respondent had dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also moved stay petition before the third respondent, who summarily rejected the same, vide the order impugned in this writ petition. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent had issued Notice of Sale of the properties of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is further submitted that pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the fourth respondent has erred in issuing notice of sale of properties of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission suspending the Sale Notice dated 25.2.2010 on condition of the petitioner depositing half of the disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order within a period of four weeks from today and directing the respondents not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be suspension of the Sale Notice Dated 25.2.2010 till the disposal of the appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal preferred by the petitioner, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax amount as per the impugned order, within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. It is needless to observe that in case of non-compliance of the above order, the sale notice dated 25.2.2010 shall become operative. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 22, 2010 MAS