IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH 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 : 19205 of 2008 Between: Sri Dharmamba Communications, D.No.16/58, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District, A.P., rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Amara Kesavaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Kurnool, D.No.53-254/D-8, Near Bhashim School, Sankalbagh, N.R. Pet, Kurnool, A.P. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District, A.P. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus holding that the impugned 'Stay Rejection Order' passed by the First Respondent dated 27-08-2008, vide order in Stay Petition No.16/2008-2009(ATP) in Appeal No.20/2008-2009 (ATP), as illegal and unsustainable and consequently grant stay of the disputed tax of Rs.1,19,997/- for the assessment period January, 2007 to March, 2007 under the A.P. Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, pending disposal of the Appeal before the First Respondent and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP 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.19205 of 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. The present writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in rejecting the stay petition ﬁled by the petitioner vide order dated 27-08-2008, as arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same. It also seeks a consequential direction to grant stay of the disputed tax of Rs.1,19,997/- for the assessment period from January, 2007 to March, 2007 under the A.P. Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, pending disposal of the Appeal before the First Respondent. The petitioner is a Master Cable Operator providing cable connections to various cable operators. According to the petitioner, as per Section 15-A of the A.P. Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, every master cable operator is liable to pay Entertainment Tax every month for the number of connections provided by him to diﬀerent subscribers either directly or through cable operators at the rates speciﬁed in each category as per the table appended to the said Section. Petitioner further states that since Dharmavaram is a Second grade Municipality, the rate of Entertainment Tax is Rs. 3/- per connection per month. According to the petitioner, the cable operators who take signals from the petitioner are having 500 connections in Dharmavaram Town. Therefore, the petitioner is paying Rs. 1500/- per month for 500 connections at Rs.3/- per connection, towards Entertainment Tax to the department. While so, the Entertainment Tax Oﬃcer, Dharmavaram who is the assessing authority passed an assessment order on 31.5.2008 levying tax of Rs. 6,79,792/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. However, during the pendency of appeal before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent, revisional authority while setting aside the order of the assessing authority, has passed separate revised assessment orders for diﬀerent periods. The grievance in this writ petition pertains to the assessment order for the period from January, 2007 to March, 2007. Challenging the said assessment order, the petitioner ﬁled appeal before the 1st respondent on 19.7.2008. Along with the appeal, he also ﬁled a stay petition seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 1,19,997/-. The 1st respondent, however, through the impugned order, dismissed the stay application. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 1st respondent quite mechanically rejected the stay application of the petitioner without taking into consideration the fact that revisional authority has erroneously assessed the petitioner for 13,333 connections instead of 500 connections. The 1st respondent was not justified in rejecting the stay application. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 6th September, 2008 __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN ,J Note: Furnish c.c. in three days. B/o pnb