THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26515 of 2009 ORDER: (Per RR,J) Pending appeal before the 2nd respondent – Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent – Additional/Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.23,67,768/- for the year 2008-09 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 16.11.2009, observed that the petitioner had failed to prove that the goods actually moved, the movement of goods occurred otherwise than by way of sale and that the branches to which the goods were purportedly moved did not act as conduits in the course of Inter-State sale of goods from Hyderabad to the ultimate buyers in other States by filing the required documents from the branches in other States, regarding the disposal of the goods received. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the third respondent did not dispute the genuineness of the ‘F’ forms filed by the petitioner and, therefore, no other documents were required to be produced to show that the goods were transported to other States otherwise than by way of sale in the course of inter- state trade. While the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be without merit, we do not propose to adjudicate the contentions, raised before us, since the substantive appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent. Suffice it to hold that, pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits fifty percent (50%) of the total disputed tax of Rs.27,06,021/- with the first respondent before 31st January 2010. The amount, if any, already paid towards the disputed tax shall be given credit to. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 6.1.2010 VV/IBL/asp