IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH 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 : 20869 of 2008 Between: M/s.WEP PHERIPHERALS LIMITED,BLOCK -H-1 4th floor, Surya Towers, S.D.Road, Secunderabad-500003 rep.by its Authorised Representative Mr.J.Krishna Kishore Raju, Accounts Executive ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) Legal, O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2nd floor, Nampally,Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT),Panjagutta Division,Nampally,Hyderabad 3 The Commercial Tax officer, S.D.Road Circle, 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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by setting aside the impugned proceedings order No.CCT`s REf.No.LIII(2)/592/2008 dated 26.8.2008 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, unjustiﬁed and contrary to provisions of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.J.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20869 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order, dated 26.8.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT’s Ref.No.LIII(2)/592/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. Along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax was also ﬁled. But the same was rejected. Against the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent also rejected the stay petition. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and at this juncture, the action of respondents 1 and 2 in rejecting stay application is arbitrary and illegal and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and if the disputed tax is recovered, the very purpose of ﬁling the appeal would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 25th September, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20869 of 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 25/09/2008