IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12307 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Harsha Enterprises, S.No. 198, NH-5 North By-Pass Road Centre, Beside VVM College, Onogle, Prakasham District, Rep. by its Manager, Mr. P. Venkateswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(VMU)-II Office of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Nellore Division, Nellore. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Guntur. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Ongole-I .....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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the penalty proceedings dt. 25-4-2008 as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and Rule of Law and consequently set aside the same as null and void and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents.: SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12307 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the penalty proceedings dated 25.4.2008 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to set aside the same. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the penalty proceedings of the 1st respondent, an appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent, but the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal and consequently, the 3rd respondent issued notice demanding penalty amount. Hence, the petitioner filed the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax submitted that against the dismissal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent, the second appeal lies before the Additional Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and without availing such remedy, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it just and proper to direct the petitioner to avail the remedies that are available under law, on condition of payment of 25% of the penalty amount demanded, within a period of six weeks from today. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 17th June, 2008 Note: Issue CC by Monday (BO) Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:12307 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 17/06/2008