IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13056 of 2008 Between: M/s.Virat Crane Industries Ltd., Opp:Mastandarga G.T.Road, Guntur, Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer,Patnam Bazar Guntur 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, 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 mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 27.5.2008 in refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed tax as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently further direct the 1st respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovery of disputed tax from the petitioner relating to the appeal for the year 2001-02 under AP Luxury Tax Act pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA 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 mandamus declaring order dated 27.05.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the first respondent not to take coercive steps for the recovery of the disputed tax relating to the year Assessment Year 2001-02 under A.P. Luxury Tax Act, pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of gutkha and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent, has completed the assessment for the year 2001-2002 on 28.03.2005, rejecting all the contentions and levied tax on the turnover at the rate of 50%, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the second respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 20.11.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in AR No. 133 of 2008, which is pending. The petitioner also filed an application before the third respondent seeking stay of collection of disputed tax, which was summarily rejected by the third respondent, 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 due 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. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. JUNE 24, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}