IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3884 of 2008 Between: M/s. Triveni Glass Ltd, 5-8-352, S.No.502 Raghavaratna Towers, Nampally,Hyderabad, Rep.by its Senior Executive(Accounts) M.B Mukherjee ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Dy.Commissioner(CT) Secunderabad Division 3 Additional Officer(CT) Legal 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,order or direction more particuarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the stay application filed by the petitioner through the impugned proceedings in CCT's Ref No.LIII(2)/930/2007 dt.22-1-2008 as illegal,arbitrary highhanded and without authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed penalty of Rs.7,57,998/- and interest of Rs.6,64,564/- pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Spl. Standing counsel for Commercial Taxes. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3884 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent No.3 in refusing to grant stay of collection of the disputed penalty and interest. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The grievance of the petitioner is that against the levy of interest and penalty and against the orders passed by the concerned authorities he filed appeal along with stay petition before the 3rd respondent. However, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, the application for stay pending appeal was rejected by the 3rd respondent. We have gone through the record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we feel that the interest of justice would have been met had the stay granted pending appeal, subject to deposit of 1/4th of the liability. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct that there shall be stay of disputed penalty and interest, pending appeal, subject to payment of 25% of the penalty and interest on or before 31st March, 2008. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.MEENA KUMARI, J. G.ROHINI, J. February 26, 2008. Note: Issue copies in four days. (BO) MVB.