IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 28797 of 2008 BETWEEN: M/s. Srinivasa Cotton Company, D.No.15/712, R.F. Road, Tadipatri, Anantapur District, Rep. By its Partnet N. Krishna Murthy. ... PETITIONER AND Commercial Tax Officer – II and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing garnishee notice in Form-VAT 206, dated 24.12.2008 to the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, unwarranted and illegal and consequently grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of RS.1,42,900/- for the tax period April 2005 to June 2007 under the CST Act pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The first respondent assessing authority by order dated 24.12.2008 (impugned herein) addressed the third respondent to make payments from the petitioner’s account with the third respondent of an amount of Rs.1,42,900/- determined as the petitioner’s tax liability under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. Against the substantive order of assessment dated 18.09.2008 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. By communication dated 15.12.2008, on the petitioner’s appeal No.33/08-09, the second respondent intimated to the petitioner that the appeal (including the application for interim relief therein) is posted for hearing on 23.12.2008. It is the petitioner’s specific case that the hearing notice issued by the second respondent dated 15.12.2008 has been received by the petitioner on 27.12.2008. Even before the petitioner’s application for interim relief in the appeal has been considered by the second respondent, the first respondent has passed the garnishee order dated 24.12.2008, which is the specific grievance in the writ petition. 3. It is fairly stated by the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes that in the light of the judgment of this Court in ANAB-E- SAHI WINES & DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD v. APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SECUNDERABAD[1] it is not proper for the assessing authority to issue a garnishee order even while the petitioner’s/assessee’s application for interim relief is pending consideration by the appellate authority. On instructions, the learned Special Standing Counsel states that the stay application of the petitioner has not been disposed of, is pending consideration before the second respondent and is posted to 05.01.2009. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to set aside the garnishee notice addressed by the first respondent in Form-VAT 206 to the third respondent by communication dated 24.12.2008 for payment of outstanding amount under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The first respondent shall, however, be at liberty to pursue appropriate steps depending upon the decision of the second respondent in the petitioner’s application for interim relief against the order of assessment dated 18.09.2008, which is the subject matter of the appeal No.33/08-09. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J December 31, 2008 Note: Issue operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) DSK [1] (1995) 21 APSTJ 98