IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20834 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sri Seetharamanjaneya Industries, Alugunur Rep. by its Managing Partner, Annamaneniyella Rao, S/o.Narayana Rao,Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial TAx Officer-I, Karimnagar Karimnagar District 2 The Appellate Deputy commisisoner (CT), Warangal Divison Warangal 3 The ARea Manager, Food Corporation of India Karimnagar .....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 particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing a composite garnishee notice for an amount of Rs.9,18,020/- vide his order dated 27.8.2008 under section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 though the petitioner was assessed to a tax of Rs.1,35,262/- pending passing of the orders by the appellate authority as illegal, arbitrary, unjust improper and contrary to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and set aside the same and consequently to set aside the garnishee notice issued under section 29 of AP VAT Act pending disposal of the orders to be passed by the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) Warangal, in Appeal No.K/67/2007 heard on 17.4.2008 and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the notice dated 27.08.2008 issued by the ﬁrst respondent to the third respondent for recovery of the disputed tax amount of Rs.9,18,020/- though the petitioner was assessed to tax of Rs.1,35,262/- for the tax period from May, 2005 to July, 2007, as per the orders dated 20.12.2007 and to consequently restrain the third respondent from taking coercive steps for the recovery of above said amount, pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm dealing in rice, boiled rice, etc. and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the respondents. The petitioner aggrieved by the orders of the Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Karimnagar-II dated 20.12.2007 preferred an appeal before the second respondent, which was heard on 17.4.2008 and orders were reserved. This fact was also informed to the Assessing Authority. While so, the ﬁrst respondent has issued garnishee notice under Sec. 29 of the A.P.V.A.T. Act, 2005 dated 27.8.2008 directing the third respondent to pay an amount of Rs.9,18,020/- on the ground that the petitioner fell in arrears. It is averred that pending pronouncement of the orders in Appeal, by the second respondent, since the ﬁrst respondent has issued notice, 27.8.2008 seeking payment of the disputed tax from the third respondent, in view of the said garnishee notice, the present petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending appeal before the Appellate Authority keeping the garnishee notice alive when the appellate Authority has heard the appeal and reserved for orders, is contrary to law and if stay is not granted, and in case the recovery of the disputed tax in question is eﬀected during pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Authority, the very purpose of ﬁling the said Appeal, which is statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated and, therefore, the impugned garnishee notice is liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes opposed the petition on the ground that since the Appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, it is for that Authority to grant stay. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of pendency of the Appeal, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, we feel, it is a ﬁt case wherein the garnishee notice in question can be suspended, but subject to imposition of certain conditions. In view of the above submission, we deem it appropriate to suspend the notice dated 27.8.2008 issued under Sec. 29 of A.P.V.A.T. 2005. Accordingly, there shall be suspension of the notice Dated 27.8.2008 issued under Sec. 29 of A.P.V.A.T. 2005 till disposal of the Appeal pending before the Appellate Authority, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today. On such deposit, the Appeal shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that in case of non- compliance of the above order, the said notice shall become operative. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan September 24, 2008 Copy in two days. //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}