IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6450 of 2009 Between: Metalika Industries, Firm Rep. by its Partner Rajesh C. Jain S/o. Late Champalal Jain Industrial Estate , Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Sanath Nagar Circle at VI th Floor, Mayur Kushal Complex Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue writ order or any direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus to the respondent not to take the recovery proceedings of the penalty of Rs. 7,41,095/- for the Assessment year 2001-2002 in pursuance of the penalty order No. 03/2003-04 dt. 30-6- 2004 and notice Rc N. 3/2008-09 dt. 9-3-2009 from the petitioner pending the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 20-2-2009 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andha Pradesh, Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.C.JAYASREE SARATHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6450 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of notice is waived by Sri K.Raji Reddy, Learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. At the request of the learned advocates, the writ petition is finally heard today. The petitioner was aggrieved by the penalty order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal had been filed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the same has also been dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, an application for stay of the recovery of the amount has been filed before the Joint Commissioner (Legal) and the said application is still pending. By order dated 26.3.2009, this Court had directed that the petitioner should pay 25% of the amount payable under the impugned order passed by the respondent and on that condition recovery of the amount of penalty had been stayed. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that 25% of the amount, as per the order of this court dated 26.3.2009, has been paid. It has been further submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the application for stay of recovery of the amount of penalty has not been decided yet. Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that till the application for stay of recovery of the penalty is finally disposed of, no further amount shall be recovered by the respondent in pursuance of the impugned order imposing penalty. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 7th April, 2009 Note: Issue C.C. in two days B/o asp