IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13407 of 2009 Between: M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, 6-3-666/B, 1st Floor, Deccan Chambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager B. Nagaraj Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Abids Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing further deposit of 50% of the balance disputed tax for grant of stay pendinG appeal before the 2nd respondent through the impugned orders in CCT Ref.No. LV(1)342/2009 DFt. 8-6-2009 and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 3,69,48,360/- out of total disputed tax of Rs. 4,22,26,576/- and interest of Rs. 50,67,087/- for the tax period 2007-08 under the APVAT Act, as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded and set aside the same and restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 3,69,48,360/- out of total disputed tax of Rs. 4,22,26,576/- and interest of Rs. 50,67,087/- for the tax period 2007-08 under the APVAT Act pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned standing counsel Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya appearing for the respondents. 2. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 3. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 08-06-2009 passed by respondent No.3 whereby revision petition filed by it against stay rejection order has been rejected. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that it has already filed an appeal before respondent No.2 which is pending for hearing. During the pendency of the said appeal, petition for stay had been filed before respondent No.3 and the said petition had been rejected. It is also its case that it has got an arguable case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even at an earlier point of time, the petitioner was having a prima facie case and, therefore, when the revision petition was pending before respondent No.3, this Court had granted protection to it and the said protection be continued till the appeal is finally heard. 6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that now the revision petition has been rejected and this shows that the petitioner is not having a prima facie case. In the circumstances, it has been prayed that the petition be rejected. 7. We have heard the learned advocates. As the appeal is pending before respondent No.2, we have been requested by the learned advocates not to discuss the merits of the case and, accordingly, we do not discuss the same. 8. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is having an arguable case before the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, we direct that the petitioner should pay one-third of the amount in dispute during the pendency of the appeal. 9. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that one-third of the amount in dispute shall be paid by the petitioner before 31-07-2009. 10. In the circumstances, it is directed that on a condition that the petitioner pays one-third of the amount in dispute before 31-07- 2009, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount in dispute which is payable by the petitioner. The amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be given credit to while calculating one-third of the amount payable by it. 11. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as partly allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 9th July, 2009 ks Note: Furnish copy by Monday. B/o