IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5943 of 2009 Between: M/s. A.R.Enterprises 58/3, GNT, Vijayawada High Way Raod, Kpppuravuru, Guntur-522 508, Guntur District, rep. by its Accountant & Authorized Signatory Mr. D. Nagarjuna. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Mangalagiri Cirlce. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur Division, Guntur. 3 Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the stay application by proceedings dated 1.11.2008 in CCT's Ref.No.LV(4)/696/2008 as arbitrary, contrary to law, against authority of law and also in violation of principles of natural justice and rule of law and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.8,82,897/- for the assessment year 2004-05, pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned Advocates have submitted that the petition be heard today and, therefore, the petition is finally heard today. 3. The grievance, which has been ventilated by the petitioner in the petition is that the impugned order dt.1.11.2008 was passed by the authority, who is the same person who had made the assessment order dt.20.12.2007. 4. The learned Advocate has clarified that as a Deputy Commissioner (CT), Sri D. Venkateswara Rao had made the order of assessment dt.20.12.2007 and the same person, namely, Sri D. Venkateswara Rao, in his capacity as a Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, had decided the stay petition on 1.11.2008, against the order which was originally decided by him. 5. The afore-stated fact could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel in view of the fact that the revisional authority has decided the stay application, which was passed in respect of an assessment order made by him. 6. In our opinion, the impugned order is bad in law. The revisional/appellate authority could not have decided the validity of an order, which was passed by himself at an earlier point of time when he was working in another capacity, i.e., as a Deputy Commissioner (CT). 7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Needless to say that the stay application can be heard afresh by another officer. 8. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 23rd March, 2009 asp/bnr