IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14121 of 2008 Between: M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 130/1 Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad-500003, rep., by its Chief Regional Manager,Mr.Saikumar Suri ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Secunderabad Divison, Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Divison, Hyderabad 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Leghal, Andhra Pradesh Nampally,Hyderabad 4 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent in LV(1)/397/2007 dated 23.6.2008 in refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of RS.2,98,77,217/- and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in issuing the garnishee notice in Form 206 dated 26.6.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law and consequently to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of balance disputed tax of Rs.2,61,43,000/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.2,98,77,217/- for the tax period April 2005 to March 2007 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act,2005 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents : SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX & SRI K. MADHAVA REDDY. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14121 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order of the 3rd respondent in LV(1)/397/2007 dated 23.6.2008 in refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed tax and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in issuing the garnishee notice, dated 26.6.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law and consequently, to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax, for the tax period from April 2005 to March 2007 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act,2005, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the 2nd respondent and along with the appeal, an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax was filed, but the 2nd respondent rejected the said application. Having aggrieved by the same, a revision petition was filed before the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent also refused to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax. Taking advantage of the rejection order of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent is taking steps to recover the disputed tax. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the collection of the disputed tax is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax in question is effected during the pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal 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 imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax till disposal of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight (8) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount, if any already paid, 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: 3rd July, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:14121 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 03/07/2008