THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.1162 OF 2010 29-01-2010 BETWEEN; M/s.HVAC Systems Private Limited, rep. By its Accounts Manager ...Petitioner vs. The Joint Commissioner CT Legal, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.1162 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per RR,J) The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 3r respondent. They were assessed to tax on their turnover relating to ai conditioning systems being treated as works contract. The 2nd responden revised the said order under Section 20(2) of the A.P.G.S.T Act,1957. Th petitioner was issued notice dated 16-01-2009 by the 2nd responden which was served on them on 21-01-2009. The petitioner however did no file any objections thereto. The revisional authority, relying on th judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Kone Elevators (India) Ltd. [(2005 140 STC 22] and the orders of the Tribunal in M/s Padmaja Commercia Corporation Vs. State of A.P. [ 13 APSTJ 13 ] and M/s Lyo Sales Corporation Vs. State of A.P. [ 14 APSTJ 100 ], treated the sai turnover as sale of air-conditioning systems and not as works contract. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Ta Appellate Tribunal (STAT) which is said to be pending as on date. The filed a petition before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of th disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal by the STAT. The 1s respondent, by the order dated 20-11-2009, rejected the stay petitio holding that supply and errection of air conditioning system was a contrac for sale as the property in the air conditioning system as a whole wa transferred to the customers and not individual parts of the system by wa of accretion. Sri J.V.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that du to certain circumstances beyond their control the petitioner did not file the objection to the show cause notice issued by the revisional authority (2n respondent); the very fact that TDS was deducted on the supply of ai conditioning system would itself show that it was a works contract and no a sale; the correctness of the judgment in M/s Kone Elevators Case wa doubted by another bench of the Supreme Court and the matter wa referred to a larger Bench and that the 1st respondent had erred in no granting stay of the collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of th appeal by the STAT. Prima facie the order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting stay is well-considered order. The petitioner has, however, placed certai invoices before us in support of their contention that what was supplie was an air-conditioning system and not room air conditioners and tha such supply was in the nature of works contract and not a case of sale o air-conditioners. We see no reason to examine these contentions urge before us for the first time, more so as the substantive appeal is pendin adjudication before the STAT. We consider it appropriate to direct th respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed ta pending disposal of the appeal by the STAT on condition that th petitioner deposits 75% of the disputed tax within a period of six (6) week from today. The amount, if any, already paid towards the disputed tax sha be given credit to. In case the petitioner does not comply with this orde within the time stipulated hereinabove the order passed by us shall stan automatically vacated and the respondents would be at liberty to recove the disputed tax in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. N order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 29th JANUARY 2010. TSNR