IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13372 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 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. the Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Sanath Nagar Circle at VIth Floor, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, 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 to the respondents declaring the order CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/171/2009 dated 07.04.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 as arbitrary and unjust and consequently restraining the respondent No.2 from taking steps against the petitioner for recovery of the remaining balance amount of Rs.3,91,095/- out of the penalty of Rs.7,41,095/- in pursuance of the penalty order No.03/2003-04 dated 30.06.2004 for the Assessment year 2001-2002, pending disposal of the appeal filed on 28.02.2009 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. C. JAYASREE SARATHY Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dt.7.4.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Hyderabad. By virtue of the impugned order, the stay application filed by the petitioner with regard to recovery of collection of disputed amount of penalty has been rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that an appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) and during the pendency of the said appeal, no amount of tax/penalty be made payable by the petitioner. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perused the impugned order. In our opinion, justifiable reasons have been given by the authority for rejecting the stay application. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the authority. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has made a request for a direction to the STAT to hear the appeal of the petitioner at an early date. In our opinion, it would not be proper for us to give such a direction. However, if the petitioner files an application praying for early hearing of the appeal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that the respondents would not object to such application being entertained by the Tribunal. Looking to the facts of the case, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 07.7.2009 bnr