IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24358 of 2008 Between: M/s.Ballarpur Industries Limited, 6/6-2/10, 6th ward Chinna Veedhi, Vizianagaram, rep.by its Manager (RM) Mr.K.Subbarao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial TAx officer, M.G.road (East) Vizianagaram 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vizianagaram 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh Nampally, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 3rd respondent in CCTs.Ref.No.LV(3)/664/2008 dated 20.10.2008 refusing to grant stay of collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs.5,89,245/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the APGST Act as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.5,89,245/- for the assessment year 2004-05(APGST) pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.5,89,245/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2004-05, pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner company is a registered dealer on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent herein. The ﬁrst respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2001-2002 to 2004-2005 by treating the net turnovers, as related to ﬁrewood and levied tax at 4% on the said turnovers. While so the second respondent enhanced the tax rate from 4% to 8% on the net turnover relating to 2001-2002 by proceedings dated 7.1.2007, which is subject matter of W.P. No. 25514 of 2007 wherein interim stay of recovery of the disputed tax was granted by order dated 30.11.2007, pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the disputed tax within six weeks. While so, the second respondent revised the assessment order passed by the ﬁrst respondent for the year 2004-2005 dated 27.3.2006 and levied 8% on the net turnover. Aggrieved by the said revision, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate T ribunal, Visakhapatnam and also moved stay petition, before the third respondent seeking stay of the collection of the disputed tax, which was summarily rejected by the third, vide the order impugned herein.. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the third respondent, the ﬁrst respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 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 eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. 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 Ramesh Ranganathan November 11, 2008 MAS