S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Public Limited company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing cellular services in the State of Andhra Pradesh and also sells cellular handsets. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and is on the rolls of the 1st respondent herein. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a Writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the notice issued by the 1st respondent to the HDFC Bank, hyderabad, the 3rd respondent herein under Section 17 of the Act as illegal and void and to pass appropriate consequential orders. ( 3 ) THE background facts for filing this writ petition be noted briefly as under: the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int-I), enforcement Wing, O/o Commissioner of commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, 2nd respondent herein inspected the business premises of the petitioner in the month of august, 2000. As the petitioner did not deduct any tax at source on works contracts awarded by it, the second respondent issued show-cause notice dated 23-09-2000 for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 calling for an explanation as to why the turnovers relating to works contracts not be subjected to tax at source. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent passed orders for the three assessment years demanding an amount of Rs. 1,27,854. 00 for 1997-98, Rs. 8,02,252. 00 for the year 1998-99 and Rs. 2,92,647. 00 for the year 1999-2000 respectively. Aggrieved by the above orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred appeals and stay applications for all the assessment years before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, secunderabad Division. The Appellate deputy Commissioner rejected all the stay applications for all the three assessment years on 19-12-2000. The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner dismissing the stay petitions preferred revision petitions in Form-XXII on 11-01-2001 under Section 19 (2-B) of the Act for all the three assessment years before the joint and Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal ). Hyderabad. The stay petitions filed before the Joint and Additional commissioner (CT) (Legal) are pending presently. Hyderabad. The stay petitions filed before the Joint and Additional commissioner (CT) (Legal) are pending presently. When the mater stood thus, the 1st respondent issued three notices dated 23-12-2000, 08-01-2000 and 18-01-2001 requesting the petitioner to pay the arrears of tax and all these notices were issued subsequent to the dismissal of stay petitions by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on 19-12-2000. Since the arrears of tax were not paid, it appears that the 1st respondent issued notice under Section 17 of the Act to the 3rd respondent-garnishee on 29-01-2001. A copy of the said notice was also forwarded to the petitioner on 30-01-2001. In the counter, it is stated that in response to the garnishee notice, the 3rd respondent-garnishee paid the amount on 30-01-2001 and the same was remitted to the government account on 31-01-2001. ( 4 ) THIS writ petition was filed in this court on 30-01-2001. In view of the development that took place on 31-01-2001 as noticed above, the petitioner filed WPMP no. 2526 of 2001 on 06-02-2001 praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to refund the disputed tax amount of Rs. 12,22,753. 00 collected through the 3rd respondent garnishee. ( 5 ) SRI S. Ravi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that it is a must that a copy of the notice envisaged under Section 17 (1) of the Act should be sent to the dealer first before sending the same to the garnishee. Alternatively, the learned Counsel would submit that the 1st respondent was obliged to send a copy of the notice to the petitioner-dealer at least simultaneously with the issuance of notice to the garnishee. In the instant case, though the notice was sent to the garnishee on 29-01-2001, a copy of the same was sent to the petitioner only on 30-01-2001. On this count itself, the impugned action is liable to be set at naught and the 1st respondent should be directed to refund the tax amount forcibly collected through the 3rd respondent - garnishee. On this count itself, the impugned action is liable to be set at naught and the 1st respondent should be directed to refund the tax amount forcibly collected through the 3rd respondent - garnishee. The learned counsel would next contend that since the revisions filed by the petitioners against the orders of the Appellate Deputy commissioner, Secunderabad Division dated 19-12-2000 dismissing the stay applications, are pending before the Joint and Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), hyderabad, the 1st respondent ought not to have taken coercive steps to recover the tax in the light of the judgment of a Division bench of this Court in Anab-E-Shahi Wines and Distilleries Private Limited vs. Appellate deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, nampally, Hyderabad and others1. Thirdly, the learned Counsel would contend the coercive steps adopted by the 1st respondent are highly uncalled for, illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand the learned Special Government Pleader for taxes would support the impugned action and would maintain that the impugned action does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this court. ( 6 ) THE 1st contention now urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not taken as a ground of attack of the impugned action in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Now it is well settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Singh vs. State of Haryana2, a party raising a point in a writ petition must plead not only relevant facts, but also state facts by way of evidence in proof of facts pleaded. It is also equally well settled that all legal grounds to assail an impugned action should be taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the object being that the opposite party should not be taken by surprise at the time of hearing. Be that as it may, since the 1st contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner involves only the interpretation of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act insofar as it obliges the assessing authority to forward a copy of the garnishee notice to the dealer, we thought it appropriate to deal with that contention. ( 7 ) SECTION 17 of the Andhra Pradesh general Sales Tax Act, 1957 reads: 17. ( 7 ) SECTION 17 of the Andhra Pradesh general Sales Tax Act, 1957 reads: 17. Recovery of tax and other dues payable under the Act from persons from whom money is due to the dealer: (1) The assessing authority, may at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing (a Copy of which shall be forwarded to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority) require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the dealer, or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for, or on account of the dealer, to pay to the assessing authority either forthwith if the money has become due or is so held, or within the time specified in the notice (but not before the money becomes due or is held), so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the dealer in respect of arrears of tax, interest, penalty or fee or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount. (2) The assessing authority, may at any time, or from time to time, amend or revoke any such notice or extend the time of making any payment in pursuance of the notice. (3) Any person making any payment in compliance with a notice under this section shall be deemed to have made the payment under the authority of the dealer and the receipt of the assessing authority shall constitute a good and sufficient discharge of the liability of such person to the extent of the amount referred to in the receipt. (4) Any person discharging any liability to the dealer after receipt of the notice referred to in this section, shall be personally liable to the assessing authority to the extent of the liability discharged or to the extent of the liability of the dealer for the amount due under this Act, whichever is less. (4) Any person discharging any liability to the dealer after receipt of the notice referred to in this section, shall be personally liable to the assessing authority to the extent of the liability discharged or to the extent of the liability of the dealer for the amount due under this Act, whichever is less. (5) Where any person to whom a notice under this section is sent proves to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due by him to the dealer or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the dealer, then nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to require such person to pay the sum demanded or any part thereof, to the assessing authority. (5-A) Where any person to whom a notice under sub-section (1) is sent, fails to pay to the assessing authority the sum demanded or any part thereof as required in the said notice, such sum shall be recoverable from such person as if it were an arrear of land revenue due from him. (6) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken for the recovery of the money due from the assessee. A careful reading of sub-section (1) of section 17 makes it abundantly clear that sending of a copy of notice envisaged under section 17 to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority is a must . But, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 do not specify the point of time at which such a copy of notice should be forwarded to the dealer. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though Section 17 does not specify the point of time at which copy of the notice should be forwarded to the dealer, having due regard to the objective behind forwarding of a copy of the notice to the dealer, copy of the notice is required to be forwarded to the dealer in advance or at least simultaneously with the issuance of the notice to the garnishee. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of punjab and Haryana High Court in Atma tube Products Ltd. vs. Union of India3 pointing out that in that case the provision of Section 226 (3) (iii) which fell for interpretation is similar to the provision contained in Section 17 (1) of the Act. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of Section 226 of the income Tax Act reads: 3 (I) The Assessing Officer or Tax recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, to pay to the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery officer either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice (not being before the money becomes due or is held) so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the assessee in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount. (II) A notice under this sub-section may be issued to any person who holds or may subsequently hold any money for or on account of the assessee jointly with any other person and for the purposes of this subsection, the shares of the joint holders in such account shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to be equal. (III) A copy of the notice shall be forwarded to the assessee at his last address known to the Assessing officer or Tax Recovery Officer, and in the case of a joint account to all the joint holders at their last addresses known to the Assessing Officer or Tax recovery Officer. (III) A copy of the notice shall be forwarded to the assessee at his last address known to the Assessing officer or Tax Recovery Officer, and in the case of a joint account to all the joint holders at their last addresses known to the Assessing Officer or Tax recovery Officer. (IV) Save as otherwise provided in this sub-section, every person to whom a notice is issued under this sub-section, shall be bound to comply with such notice, and, in particular, where any such notice is issued to a post office, banking company or an insurer, it shall not be necessary for any pass book, deposit receipt, policy or any other document to be produced for the purpose of any entry, endorsement or the like being made before payment is made, notwithstanding any rule, practice or requirement to the contrary. (V) Any claim respecting any property in relation to which a notice under this sub-section has been issued arising after the date of the notice shall be void as against any demand contained in the notice. (VI) Where a person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent objects to it by a statement on oath that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the assessee, then, nothing contained in this sub-section shall be deemed to required such person to pay any such sum or part thereof, as the case may be, but if it is discovered that such statement was false in any material particular, such person shall be personally liable to the Assessing officer or Tax Recovery Officer to the extent of his own liability to the assessee on the date of the notice or to the extent of the assessee s liability for any sum due under this Act, whichever is less. (VII) The Assessing Officer or Tax recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, amend or revoke any notice issued under this subsection or extend the time for making any payment in pursuance of such notice. (VII) The Assessing Officer or Tax recovery Officer may, at any time or from time to time, amend or revoke any notice issued under this subsection or extend the time for making any payment in pursuance of such notice. (VIII) The Assessing Officer or Tax recovery Officer shall grant a receipt for any amount paid in compliance with a notice issued under this subsection, and the person so paying shall be fully discharged from his liability to the assessee to the extent of the amount so paid. (IX) Any person discharging any liability to the assessee after receipt of a notice under this sub-section shall be personally liable to the Assessing officer or Tax Recovery Officer to the extent of his own liability to the assessee so discharged or to the extent of the assessee s liability for any sum due under this Act, whichever is less. (X) If the person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent fails to make payment in pursuance thereof to the Assessing Officer or Tax Recovery officer, he shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the amount specified in the notice and further proceedings may be taken against him for the realization of the amount as if it were an arrear of tax due from him, in the manner provided in Sections 222 to 225 and the notice shall have the same effect as an attachment of a debt by the Tax recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under Section 222. In the case of Atma Tube Products Ltd. (supra), the challenge was to the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, Investiation Circle-2, respondent No. 2 therein under Section 226 (3) of the Income-tax Act directing the manager, Bank of Baroda, Sector 17, chandigarh to pay forthwith any amount due from the bank or held by it on account of the petitioner upto Rs. 5,53,920. The petitioner-company was an assessee with income-tax department. No proceedings against the company were pending under the Act; not is any amount due from the petitioner to the department of Income-tax. The petitioner company, on receiving information from its banker regarding notice, immediately represented to the respondent No. 2 and submitted a letter dated March 27, 1995. 5,53,920. The petitioner-company was an assessee with income-tax department. No proceedings against the company were pending under the Act; not is any amount due from the petitioner to the department of Income-tax. The petitioner company, on receiving information from its banker regarding notice, immediately represented to the respondent No. 2 and submitted a letter dated March 27, 1995. In that letter, the petitioner-company clearly stated that no proceedings are pending against them nor any sum under the Act is due against them and that the notice, being illegal, be withdrawn. However, during the course of discussion, the petitioner-company was informed by respondent No. 2 that a sum of rs. 16 lakhs is due from S. K. Gupta, c/o Standard Carrier, SCO 43, Sector 7, chandigarh, on account of arrears of income-tax and a company known as transholding Private Limited, SCO 457-58, sector 35-C, Chandigarh, owes some money to the said S. K. Gupta of Standard Carriers. Since, Transholding Private Limited had failed to deposit the said amount in pursuance of notice under Section 226 (3) of the Act issued to the said company, the impugned notice, has been issued to the petitioner-company on the ground that it is a sister concern of M/s. Transholding private Limited. The representatives of the petitioner-company immediately clarified the position to respondent No. 2 that the petitioner-company has nothing to do with transholding Private Limited as the petitioner-company is a separate legal entity, managed by a separate board of directors and that it owes nothing to s. K. Gupta, the defaulter assessee. It was further contended that the notice issued under Section 226 (3) of the Act is illegal, unjustified, without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Act, having been issued without notice to the petitioner and, therefore, liable to be quashed. It was also contended that the Assessing Officer or the tax Recovery Officer can issue notice to a person from whom money is due to the defaulting assessee and that there was no money due from the petitioner to s. K. Gupta, the defaulting assessee, and therefore, no recovery could be made from it. The writ petition was opposed by respondents taking a stand that a sum of rs. 16 lakhs was due from S. K. Gupta of standard Carriers who had given a letter dated February 22, 1995 stating that a sum of Rs. The writ petition was opposed by respondents taking a stand that a sum of rs. 16 lakhs was due from S. K. Gupta of standard Carriers who had given a letter dated February 22, 1995 stating that a sum of Rs. 5,53,920 is recoverable by him from m/s. Transholding Private Limited and a notice under Section 226 (3) of the Act was issued to Transholding Private Limited and it was also contended that Transholding private Limited and the petitioner are the units of Atma Group of Industries under the same management. ( 9 ) IN the context of those facts of that case, the Supreme Court was pleased to hold:"proceedings under Section 226 (3) of the Act are in the nature of garnishee proceedings, i. e. , attachment of a debt by means of which judgment-creditor is able to reach money due from the judgment-debtor which is in the hands of a third person. Issuance of a notice in writing to the person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee to pay the same to the Assessing Officer is a sine qua non for initiating the proceedings under Section 226 (3) of the Act. In the absence of the notice to the concerned person, there is no valid initiation of garnishee proceedings. Under clause (vi) of Section 226 (3) of the Act, a person to whom a notice under this sub-section is sent has a right to object to the notice by a statement on oath that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the assessee and, then, nothing contained in this sub-section would require such person to pay any money or part thereof, as the case may be. However, if the Assessing Officer or the Tax Recovery Officer discovers that such statement was false in any material particular, then the person concerned becomes personally liable to pay to the extent of his own liability to the assessee on the date of the notice. However, if the Assessing Officer or the Tax Recovery Officer discovers that such statement was false in any material particular, then the person concerned becomes personally liable to pay to the extent of his own liability to the assessee on the date of the notice. After the person concerned objects by filing a statement on oath that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due from him to the assessee then, recovery cannot be effected from him unless the Assessing officer or the Tax Recovery Officer holds a further inquiry in which the concerned person is associated. On holding of the inquiry, if it is found that the statement made by the person concerned was false, then he becomes liable to pay the amount personally to the extent of his liability. In other words, after the statement on oath is filed by the concerned person that the sum demanded is not due from him to the assessee, then, the burden shifts on the Department to prove that the statement filed by that person is false and that some amount is due from the concerned person to the assessee. Clause (x) of Section 226 (3) of the Act provides that if a person to whom notice under Section 226 (3) of the Act has been issued fails to make payment in pursuance there of, only then he will be deemed to be an assessee in default. In the present case, no notice was sent to the petitioner under section 226 (3) (i) of the Act and straightaway a notice was sent by the assistant Commissioner of Incometax, investigation Circle-II, chandigarh, to the bank attaching the amount of the petitioner lying in the bank. In the present case, no notice was sent to the petitioner under section 226 (3) (i) of the Act and straightaway a notice was sent by the assistant Commissioner of Incometax, investigation Circle-II, chandigarh, to the bank attaching the amount of the petitioner lying in the bank. "however, Sri S. Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioner would pointedly draw our attention to the observation of the Supreme court that "issuance of a notice in writing to the person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee to pay the same to the Assessing officer is a sine qua non for initiating the proceedings under Section 226 (3) of the act" and would contend that the 1st respondent in the instant case was obliged to forward a copy of the garnishee notice issued under Section 17 (1) to the petitioner in advance or at least simultaneously with the issuance of the notice to the garnishee. ( 10 ) WE are at a loss to understand how the above observation of the Supreme Court would in any way advance the 1st contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 11 ) THE above observation of the supreme Court is undoubtedly an authority for the proposition that forwarding of a copy of the garnishee notice to the dealer is a must . In the above case, the Supreme court was not called upon to decide the point of time at which the copy of the notice should have been forwarded to the assessee as required under Section 226 (3) (iii) of the income-tax Act. Therefore, the above decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Atma Tube Products Ltd. (supra) is not an authority to state that a copy of the notice should be forwarded to the assessee or the dealer, as the case may be, in advance or simultaneously with the issuance of the garnishee notice. Therefore, the above decision of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Atma Tube Products Ltd. (supra) is not an authority to state that a copy of the notice should be forwarded to the assessee or the dealer, as the case may be, in advance or simultaneously with the issuance of the garnishee notice. ( 12 ) IN our considered opinion, the objective of forwarding a copy of the garnishee notice to the dealer at his last address known to the Assessing Authority is that the dealer should know that his money lying with the garnishee is sought to be recovered or recovered so that he shall not create third-party interests as regards such money by issuing cheques or otherwise, and to avoid any embarrassment to the dealer in that regard. If that is the objective behind sending a copy of the garnishee notice to the dealer, it cannot be said that the action of the 1st respondent in forwarding a copy of the garnishee notice dated 29-01-2001 to the petitioner-dealer on 30-01-2001, a day after the issuance of the notice to the garnishee would vitiate the validity of the garnishee notice on that count itself. It is not to suggest that the assessing Authority can take his own sweet time to forward a copy of the garnishee notice to the dealer after issuing the same to the garnishee. The only thing to be seen is whether the Assessing Authority has forwarded a copy of the garnishee notice to the dealer within a reasonable time. Be that as it may, we do not find any prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of the fact that a copy of the garnishee notice was forwarded to the petitioner-dealer on 30-01-2001. In fact it is not the case of the petitioner at all that on account of the fact that the Assessing Authority forwarded the copy of the garnishee notice on 30-01-2001, it was subjected to some prejudice. A division Bench of this Court consisting one of us (S. R. Nayak, J.) in M/s. Bankatlal satyanarayana Parikh and Co. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes4 has observed:"the dialectics of the audi alteram partem rule has, in contemporaneous administrative law, evolved dynamically. The means-based technical view has been eschewed in favour of the holistic and effectanalysis model. Violation of natural justice is by itself, no longer sufficient to invalidate State action. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes4 has observed:"the dialectics of the audi alteram partem rule has, in contemporaneous administrative law, evolved dynamically. The means-based technical view has been eschewed in favour of the holistic and effectanalysis model. Violation of natural justice is by itself, no longer sufficient to invalidate State action. A clear prejudice that has been suffered by the violation needs to be pleaded and demonstrated. This is the current and operative doctrine-vide S. L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan [ (1980) 4 SCC 379 }; k. L. Tripathi vs. S. B. I. [ (1984) 1 SCC 43 ]; rajender Singh vs. State of Madhya pradesh [ (1996) 5 SCC 460 ]; M. C. vs. Union of India [ (1996) 6 SCC 237] and aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor ali Khan [ (2000) 7 SCC 529 ]. " ( 13 ) MOREOVER, the 1st contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is too much technical in nature. Even assuming that under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, the Assessing Authority is required to forward a copy of the garnishee notice to the dealer in advance or simultaneously with the issuance of the garnishee notice, and in a given case the Assessing Authority does not adhere to that rule, only on that count, the garnishee notice would not become invalid unless it is shown that on that count some prejudice is caused to the dealer. The following observations of the supreme Court in S. P. Noronh vs. Prema kumari Khanna5 are quite apposite:"parties should win or loose on substantial questions, not technical tortures and Courts cannot be abettors""to maintain the integrity of law, the court must suit the action to the word, the word to the action". ( 14 ) THEREFORE, we hold that the mere fact that a copy of the garnishee notice was sent to the petitioner one day after the notice was issued to the garnishee would not violate either the principles of natural justice or the doctrine of fairness in action. ( 15 ) WE also do not find any merit in the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner dated 19-12-2000 are pending before the Joint and additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), hyderabad, the 1st respondent ought not to have taken any coercive steps to recover the tax. ( 16 ) THE judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Anab-E-Shahi Wines and 5. AIR 1980 SC 193 . Distilleries Private Limited vs. Appellate deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division, nampally, Hyderabad and others (supra) is in no way helpful to the petitioner. In that case, the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of assessment alongwith an application for stay. The appeal and stay applications were preferred on February 22, 1995. During the pendency of the appeal and the stay application, the Assessing authority had started recovery proceedings by issuing garnishee notice under section 17 (1) of the Act. Being aggrieved by that action, the petitioner had preferred the writ petition. The Division Bench in that fact-situation has opined that so long as the interim order is not passed on the stay application by the appellate authority, coercive steps taken by the Assessing authority under Section 17 (1) of the Act to recover the amount of tax under the assessment Order was not proper. This decision of the Division Bench fell for consideration before another Division bench of this Court in Stibene Chemicals limited vs. Add1. Commissioner and Joint commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad and another6. In that case, the stay application filed before the Appellate deputy Commissioner was dismissed by the appellate authority on 07-02-1996. Against the said order, the petitioner therein had preferred a revision on 13-2-1996 before the Additional commissioner and Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal ). In the meanwhile/a destfaint order was issued by the 2nd respondent therein and the petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the legality of the destraint order. While assailing the validity of the destraint order reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Anab-E-Shahi wines and Distilleries Private Limited vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad division, Nampally, Hyderabad and others (supra ). The Division Bench distinguished the case in Anab-E-Shahi Wines and distilleries Private Limited (supra) and held:"dr. M. V. K. Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends that in view of the decision of this Court in Anab-E-Shahi Wines and distilleries Private Limited vs. Appellate deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad division, Nampally, Hyderabad [ (1995) 98 STC 386], the 2nd respondent has committed gross illegality in taking coercive steps for the recovery of the tax. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the writ as prayed for. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the writ as prayed for. We are afraid, we cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. That was a case where the first appeal of the dealer was pending and the first Appellate authority was not disposing of the application for interim orders. It was in these circumstances, the Division bench observed, "so long as an order is not passed on the stay application by the Appellate Authority, coercive methods to recover the amount of tax under the assessment order, which is the subject matter of appeal, are not proper". In our view, the ratio of that judgment has no application to a case like the present one, where the first Appellate authority has already rejected the application for stay and the matter is pending before the revisional authority. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, we direct the first respondent to dispose of the stay petition as expeditiously as practicable, in any event not later than one week after the receipt of copy of this order. "as held by the Division Bench in the above case, the ratio of the judgment in Anab-E-Shahi Wines and Distilleries Private Limited (supra) has no application to a case where the 1st appellate authority has already rejected the application for stay and the matter is pending before the revisional authority. Therefore, we reject the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 17 ) THIS takes us to the last contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the coercive step taken by the 1st respondent is highly uncalled for, illegal and arbitrary. Since the stay application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the 1st appellate authority, there was no legal bar or impediment for the 1st respondent to take steps envisaged under Section 17 of the act. On the other hand, it is trite to state that it is the duty of the 1st respondent to take necessary legal steps envisaged under the Act to recover the tax amount to subserve the public interest. The 1st respondent is armed with necessary power in that regard by the provisions of section 17 (1) of the Act. On the other hand, it is trite to state that it is the duty of the 1st respondent to take necessary legal steps envisaged under the Act to recover the tax amount to subserve the public interest. The 1st respondent is armed with necessary power in that regard by the provisions of section 17 (1) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned action initiated by the 1st respondent under Section 17 (1) of the Act is arbitrary and unreasonable. ( 18 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, w. P. M. P. NO. 2526 of 2001 is also dismissed. However, we direct the Joint and additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), hyderabad to dispose of the revision (stay) petitions of the petitioner, if not already done, as expeditiously as practicable, in any event not later than one week after the receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the Joint and Additional commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad.