HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.24666 OF 2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy Heard Mr. S.Suribabu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the 3^rd respondent-Additional Commissioner (ST) (Legal) in CCTs Ref.No.LIII(1)/14/2025 in ACO No.5/2025. By the impugned order, learned Additional Commissioner has refused to grant stay to the petitioner so far as the order under challenge before the Tribunal i.e., order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad, in R.R.No.02/2023-24, TIN:36541933160/2014-15 (VAT) vide D.C.No.106, dated 22.03.2025. Against which, an appeal has been filed before the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal at Hyderabad, which is pending consideration.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that while preferring appeal, petitioner has also sought grant of interim protection before the Additional Commissioner and while approaching the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner has already complied with the statutory requirement as is required under second proviso to Section 33(2) of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and in the process, 25% of the assessed amount has already been deposited and the prayer was made for the stay of recovery of balance 75% of the amount, pending appeal before the Tribunal. This request has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 14.07.2025, against which the instant Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner has not made out a strong case for grant of interim protection and, therefore, the authority has rightly rejected the same. It is further submitted that the assessment, as per the original order dated 23.03.2021, is more than Rs.40.00 lakhs and, therefore, the insistence made by the Additional Commissioner cannot be said to be improper or actuated by any ulterior motive, but is strictly in accordance with law.

5. However, having heard the contentions put-forth on either side, it emerges from the documents placed on record that the revisional authority, by order dated 22.03.2025, found that it was incorrect allowance of exemption on sub-contract works contract turnover over Rs.37,56,553/-. The said order has since been challenged before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench-IV (NCLT), where the matter is pending consideration.

6. When the matter is still to be taken up for hearing by the authority, the petitioner, in the meantime, deposited 25% of the assessed amount in terms of the proviso to Section 33 and sought stay of recovery of the balance amount.

However, the said request came to be rejected.

7. Prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that if the authority insists upon deposit of the entire assessed amount without even waiting the final outcome of the appeal, the very purpose of the beneficial provision for grant of interim relief conferred with the authorities would stand defeated. Moreover, once a statutory remedy is provided to the parties, along with a proviso enabling them to seek interim protection, the same has to be given effect to in accordance with law. Therefore, in the event the appellant complies with the conditions stipulated under the proviso, the execution of the remaining portion of the impugned order needs to be protected at least during the pendency of the appeal before the competent authority.

8. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the writ petition to the extent that, since the petitioner has already deposited 25% of the amount determined by the revisional authority, the execution of the remaining part of the impugned order shall remain stayed pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.