IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6415 of 2010 Between: M/s. Panchal Steels, rep., by its Proprietor Mr. Jyotsna M.Panchal, Erragadda, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Nampally, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6415 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT’s Ref.No.LIII(2)/82/2010, and seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent not to collect the disputed tax for the period June 2005 to September, 2005, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate tribunal. The case of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order and the order of the 1st appellate authority, it had filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending and in the meantime, it had filed an application before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. But the 1st respondent rejected the stay application. Now, the authorities are insisting for payment of the disputed tax. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and that the petitioner had already paid 50% of the disputed tax, and as the stay application was rejected by the 1st respondent, the authorities are insisting for payment of the disputed tax and in these circumstances, if the stay is not granted and the entire 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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 balance disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 23rd March, 2010 Note: Issue CC on Friday (B/O) nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6415 of 2010 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 23/03/2010