IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22720 of 2008 Between: M/s. Circar Lakshmi Industries Rep. by its Mngng. Partner Mr. K.D.S. Bapuji D.No.14-309, Block No.14, Behind Tadepalli Bus Stand, Nulakapeta, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Benz Circle, Vijayawada. 2 The Appellate Dy. Commissioner (CT) Vijayawada. .....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 Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29-8- 2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for collection of disputed tax of Rs.2,21,815/- for the assessment year 2004- 05 under the A.P. Gen. Sales Tax Act, 1957, pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: KUM.K.UMA Counsel for the Respondents: SPECIAL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22720 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, dated 29-8-2008 passed by the 2nd respondent and to restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for collection of disputed tax of Rs.2,21,815/- for the assessment year 2004-05, 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. Taking advantage of the same, the 1st respondent is trying to take 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 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 six (6) 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: 20th October, 2008 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:22720 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 20/10/2008