IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6113 of 2010 Between: M/s. Mysore Ghee Stores, 4-5-836, Badi Chowdi, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Partner, Mr. R.Shanmugam ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.7,83,696/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and to consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-2004 pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaging in the business of ghee and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent herein under APGST Act. The second respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2003-2004 granting certain exemptions by order dated 16.3.2007 and the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Division, Hyderabad, under the revisional powers, proposed to revise the assessment and accordingly passed an order dated 6.11.2009 confirming the proposed levy of tax. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and also moved stay petition, before the first respondent, which was summarily rejected by the first respondent, vide the order impugned in this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, coercive steps are being contemplated for recovery of the disputed tax by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to deposit half of the disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 18, 2010 MAS