IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7928 of 2009 Between: M/s. Vrindavan Steels, A Proprietary Concern, Flat No.207, Silver Oaks Complex, Masabtank, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr. Aditya Goel. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) (Legal), O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Hyderabad. 4 Sri Yedakantam, Commercial Tax Officer, Presently posted at Narasannapeta. .....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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 20-02-2009, passed in CCT's Ref.No. LIII(2)/63/2009, passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of the APVAT Act, 2005. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. B. CHANDRASEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the order dt.20.2.2009 whereby the application filed by the petitioner, seeking stay of collection of disputed penalty, has been rejected by respondent No.1. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we direct that the petitioner shall pay 50% (fifty percent) of the amount payable within six weeks from today and on that condition, no amount of penalty shall be recovered from the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. It is also directed that the appeals filed by the petitioner against the assessment order imposing penalty as well as the order demanding penalty, which are pending, should be disposed of preferably within eight weeks from today. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has assured this Court that the petitioner shall extend its cooperation to the appellate authority so that the appeals can be decided as directed hereinabove. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent, with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29-04-2009 bnr