Judgment : (G. Rohini, J.) The petitioner in these two writ petitions is a registered dealer under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner was assessed under the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘AP VAT Act’) for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 by separate orders dated 8.5.2013 passed by the respondent No.4 – Assistant Commissioner (CT)-VI, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed appeals before the respondent No.3 under Section 31 of the A.P. VAT Act on payment of pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax along with applications for stay of recovery of the disputed tax. However, by orders dated 17.8.2013 the respondent No.3 rejected the applications for stay and the said orders were made available on the website of the respondent No.3 on 23.08.2013. On the very same day the petitioner filed Revision Petitions before the respondent No.2 as provided under Section 31 (3) (b) of the A.P. VAT Act and the same were posted to 6.9.2013 for hearing. In the meanwhile, by notice dated 20.08.2013 which was received by the petitioner by e-mail on 21.08.2013, the respondent No.5 called upon the petitioner to pay the entire tax payable under the assessment orders within three days, failing which coercive steps would be initiated without any further notice. The petitioner gave a reply dated 21.08.2013 bringing to the notice of the respondent No.5 that the revision petitions are pending before the respondent No.2 and requesting not to proceed with any coercive steps. In spite of the same, the respondent No.5 again issued a fresh recovery notice dated 26.8.2013 calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax within three days stating that their stay petitions were dismissed by the respondent No.3 on 17.08.2013. The petitioner again made a request by letter dated 26.08.2013 through his counsel not to proceed further since the hearing in their revision petitions is fixed for 6.9.2013. That apart, the petitioner also filed an application before the respondent No.2 to advance the hearing and accordingly the revisions were heard on 30.08.2013. The petitioner again made a request by letter dated 26.08.2013 through his counsel not to proceed further since the hearing in their revision petitions is fixed for 6.9.2013. That apart, the petitioner also filed an application before the respondent No.2 to advance the hearing and accordingly the revisions were heard on 30.08.2013. However, the respondent No.5 by notice dated 30.08.2013 instructed the Bankers of the petitioner to make the payment of the total amount of Rs.9,07,96,928/- outstanding under the assessment orders for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 purportedly in terms of the provisions of Section 29 of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005. In compliance with the same, the Bank had paid the above said amounts to the Commercial Tax Department by debiting from the account of the petitioner on 30.08.2013 itself. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 by order dated 03.09.2013 disposed of the revision petitions of the petitioner granting stay of collection of 50% of the disputed tax for the tax period 2009-10 and 2010-11. By the date of the said order, since the respondent No.5 had already recovered the entire tax under the assessment orders dated 8.5.2013, these two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent No.5 in recovering the entire amounts through the Bankers of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondent No.5 to refund the entire amount so recovered. A further declaration is sought that the order dated 3.9.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 to the extent of imposing the condition of payment of 50% of the disputed tax while granting stay of recovery of the disputed tax is arbitrary and illegal since the said condition was imposed without assigning any reasons and without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. We have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Balaji Varma, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents. We have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Balaji Varma, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents. Having regard to the ratio laid down in ANAB-E-SHAHI WINES AND DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SECUNDERABAD DIVISION, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD (21 APSTJ 98)and KATURI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & OTHERS (62 VST 185 (AP))that the recovery of disputed tax of penalty by initiating garnishee proceedings pending disposal of the stay application before the appellate authority or the revisional authority is unjust, improper and arbitrary and keeping in view that the respondent No.2 - Revisional Authority by order dated 3.9.2013 stayed the recovery of 50% of the disputed tax, this Court while admitting the writ petitions passed an interim order dated 10.10.2013 directing the respondent No.5 to remit forthwith to the Bank account of the petitioner 50% of the disputed tax which was already recovered. In compliance with the said interim order dated 10.10.2013 the respondent No.5 has admittedly remitted 50% of the disputed tax to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, it is submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents that no further enquiry is necessary in the writ petitions and the same may be disposed of leaving it open to the 3rd respondent - Appellate authority to decide the petitioner’s appeals in accordance with law. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners opposed the said proposal contending that the order of the respondent No.2, dated 3.9.2013 which was passed without assigning any reasons for imposing the condition of payment of 50% of disputed tax while granting stay of recovery of tax determined in the assessment orders is arbitrary and illegal and therefore the same is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that even the order of the respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority dated 17.8.2013 is liable to be set aside on the very same ground of not being a speaking order. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that even the order of the respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority dated 17.8.2013 is liable to be set aside on the very same ground of not being a speaking order. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority shall be directed to consider afresh the petitioner’s applications for stay and consequently the balance 50% of the tax determined under the assessment orders shall also be refunded to the petitioner in the light of the law laid down in ANAB-E-SHAHI WINES AND DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED’S case (1 supra) and KATURI MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL’S case (2 supra). To substantiate his submission that the respondents 2 & 3 are bound to assign sufficient reasons in support of their orders dated 3.9.2013 and 17.8.2013 respectively, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon ANWAR ALI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER (196 ITR 354 (AP))and KRANTI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. MASOOD AHMED KHAN AND OTHERS (2010) 9 SCC 496). Having carefully gone through the impugned orders dated 3.9.2013 and 17.8.2013, we do not find any substance in the contention that they are non-speaking orders and therefore cannot be sustained. A reading of the order dated 17.08.2013 shows that the respondent No.3 who is the appellate authority refused to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax observing that the dispute involved in the appeal is determination of underdeclared tax on account of sale of plant and machinery and therefore he did not find any prima facie case to grant stay. May be that no elaborate reasons were assigned, however we are unable to hold that the said order was passed by the 3rd respondent without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Coming to the order dated 3.9.2013, the respondent No.2 – Revisional authority having referred to the contentions of both the parties in detail, expressed that the assessing authority having called for certain information on clarification of credit entries identified a turnover of Rs.77.91 remained unreconciled and hence levied tax. Thus the 2nd respondent thought it fit to grant subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax. Thus the 2nd respondent thought it fit to grant subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion from the order dated 3.9.2013 may be reproduced hereunder: “The main issue involved in this case is under declaration of tax by the appellant as determined by Audit Officer to an extent of Rs.10,12,83,500/- for 2009-2010 and Rs.24,84,418/- for 2010-2011. The Authorized Representative submitted that in the Appellant’s accounting software, they have multiple items mapped with the account of Plant and Machinery based on site location. If a particular item is moved/transferred from one telecom site to another telecom site of the company in the same State (or from one warehouse to another in the State), the earlier entry is reversed and new entry is passed based on the new location. Entries move in the same account of Plant and Machinery, only the location gets changed in the accounting software. Hence effect in the account of Plant and Machinery is nil due to these entries and therefore credit entries in the account of Plant and Machinery are only adjustment/rectification entries and not due to sale of Plant and Machinery. The Authorized Representative further submitted that it was only a mere credit entries pertaining to reversal of excess provision/inter-unit adjustment of fixed assets value which were wrongly treated as sale/turnover without giving any reason. Submitting the above, the Authorized Representative requested to grant stay of collection of taxes. I have carefully gone through the contentions of the Authorized Representative. The Assessing Authority called for certain information on clarification of credit entries, and later on the assessing authority identified a turnover of Rs.77.91 remained unreconciled and hence levied tax. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to grant stay of collection of 50% of disputed tax of Rs.10,12,83,500/- and Rs.24,84,418/- for the tax period 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 under AP VAT Act, 2005 respectively, subject to payment of 50% of the total disputed tax on or before 30.09.2013. Further if any amount paid by the appellant at the time of /or after admission of this appeal shall be given credit. The stay will be in force, till disposal of appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta. Further if any amount paid by the appellant at the time of /or after admission of this appeal shall be given credit. The stay will be in force, till disposal of appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta. If the assessee fails to pay the amount as above, the assessing authority/competent authority is at liberty to enforce collection of entire disputed tax.” The above said order, in our considered opinion, cannot be held to be a non-speaking order. Since the reasons are implicit in the order itself, there is no reason to hold that the said order came to be passed without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It may also be added that the power conferred under Section 31 (3) (a) & (b) of the APVAT Act upon the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority to grant stay pending the appeal is restricted by the statute itself. It is to be noticed that Section 31 (3) (a) provides that the Appellate authority may order stay subject to furnishing of such security or on payment of such part of the disputed tax, whereas Section 31 (3) (b) provides that the Revisional authority may order stay of collection of the disputed tax subject to such terms and conditions as he may think fit. Section 31 (3) (a) & (b) may be extracted hereunder for ready reference: 31 (3) (a) Where an appeal is admitted under sub-section (1), the appellate authority may, on an application filed by the appellant and subject to furnishing of such security or on payment of such part of the disputed tax within such time as may be specified, order stay of collection of balance of the tax under dispute pending disposal of the appeal; (b) against an order passed by the appellate authority refusing to order stay under clause (a), the appellant may prefer a revision petition within thirty days from the date of the order of such refusal to the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner who may subject to such terms and conditions as he may think fit, order stay of collection of balance of the tax under dispute pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority; On a reading of the above provisions, it is apparent that the statute itself requires imposing terms and conditions while granting stay of collection of the disputed tax pending appeal and it is not permissible to pass an unconditional order. Having regard to the statutory power in exercise of which the orders dated 17.8.2013 and 3.9.2013 came to be passed and in view of the fact that the said orders are only interim orders pending the appeals before the 3rd respondent, we are of the opinion that the said orders cannot be held to be non-speaking orders. As expressed above, the reasons are explicit in both the orders. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that the said orders were passed without application of mind to the issue involved is unfounded. Coming to the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Division Bench of this Court in ANWAR ALI’S case (3 supra) was dealing with the power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 273-A of the Income Tax Act for waiver of the penalty and interest. The petitioner therein could not file the return under the Income Tax Act within time. He filed return after four years with due compliance of Section 273-A of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner therein could not file the return under the Income Tax Act within time. He filed return after four years with due compliance of Section 273-A of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Officer imposed interest and penalty for non-filing of return and aggrieved by the same the petitioner therein filed a representation before the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 273-A praying for waiver of interest under Section 139 (8) and Section 217 of the Income Tax Act as well as waiver of penalty leviable under Section 271 (1-A) and Section 273 (1). Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner waived 50% of the penalty and interest by order dated 21.09.1998. The said order was assailed before this Court in a writ petition contending that the Commissioner had misdirected himself in granting partial relief when the petitioner had satisfied all the conditions mentioned in Section 273-A of the Income Tax Act and therefore the impugned order is arbitrary and amounts to failure to exercise the judicial discretion. Having regard to the settled legal position that the conditions mentioned in sub-sections (1) & (4) of Section 273-A of the Income Tax Act are sine qua non for the exercise of discretionary power under the said Section and that the extent of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 273-A varies from reducing the penalty/interest to waiver of penalty/waiver completely and having taken note of the fact that though the conditions precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 273-A had been satisfied by the petitioner, the Commissioner had not given any reasons as to why the relief is limited to waiving 50% of penalty and interest, this Court quashed the said order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for consideration afresh. Thus, the facts and circumstances in ANWAR ALI’S case (3 supra) are entirely different from the case on hand. As noticed above, the relief granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the said decision was in the light of the scope and discretion conferred on the Commissioner under Section 273-A of the Income Tax Act. The other decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel i.e., KRANTI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED’S case (4 supra) is also in our considered opinion is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, a cryptic order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was assailed on the ground of absence of reasons. The other decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel i.e., KRANTI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED’S case (4 supra) is also in our considered opinion is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, a cryptic order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was assailed on the ground of absence of reasons. The impugned order passed by the National Commission while dismissing a revision was as under: “Heard. In view of the concurrent findings of the State Commission, we do not find any force in this Revision Petition. The Revision Petition is dismissed.” After referring to various provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court held that National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has the trappings of a civil court and is a high powered quasi-judicial forum for deciding lis between the parties. While reviewing the decided cases in which it was held by the Courts from time to time that a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and remanded the matter to the said Forum for deciding the matter by passing a reasoned order. The validity of the impugned orders in the present case cannot be tested in the light of the well-settled principles reiterated in the above decisions since the statute itself restricted the discretion conferred on the respondents 2 and 3. At any rate, as already expressed above, the orders dated 17.8.2013 and 3.9.2013 in our considered opinion cannot be held to be non-speaking orders. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the said orders are illegal and arbitrary is untenable and the same do not warrant interference by this Court on any ground whatsoever. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the order of the respondent No.2 dated 3.9.2013 granting stay of collection of 50% of disputed tax shall continue till the appeals are disposed of by the respondent No.3 following due process of law. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the writ petitions shall stand closed.