THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9002 of 2011 Dated:11.04.2011 Between: M/s.Sai Vaccine Stores. …Petitioner And The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, A.P., Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9002 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a Value Added Tax dealer on the rolls of the third respondent. The assessment, for the period from September 2008 to August 2009, was completed by the second respondent pursuant to an audit as authorized by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner’s turnover towards sale of Kamrab-300 1 U (Rabies Immune globulin Human EP), Tetig – 500 1 U (Human ant tetanus immunoglobulin), Rhogam u 1 tva – Filterved plus Rho (d) Immune Globulin (Human), Microgram Filterved plus Rho, Iviglob (Immunoglobulin for Intravenous use B.P. (Human), Hep big-5 Hepatities B Immuno globalin (Human) E.P., Hepatities-B Immune Globulin (Human), Elgam Immunoglobulin (PH4) for intravenous Injection was charged to tax @ 4% under Item 88 of IV Schedule of the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act). The petitioner’s contention that the above goods fall under Item 22 of I schedule of the Act and, therefore, stand exempted was not accepted by the second respondent. Be that as it is, against the assessment order, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and, thereafter, preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Visakhapatnam Bench. Yet again, after issuing notice, the second respondent passed orders in Form VAT 203 levying penalty. The petitioner again was unsuccessful before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. It appears that the petitioner has already filed a second appeal before the STAT, Visakhapatnam Bench, and has also moved the first respondent for stay of collection of penalty pending disposal of the appeal before the STAT. In the meanwhile, the second respondent issued an order under Section 29 of the Act requesting the fourth respondent to pay the amount due by the petitioner towards the liability of penalty. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioner and the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes made their submissions. Though the issues were broadly covered, it would not be proper for us to go into these issues as the petitioner’s second appeal against assessment as well as against penalty are statedly pending before the STAT, Visakhapatnam Bench. Further the petitioner’s application for stay, pending appeal before the STAT, is also pending. The Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, after getting instructions, submits that though the application made by the petitioner for stay stands posted to 19.04.2011, the same will be advanced to 13.04.2011 and appropriate orders will be passed thereon. In view of the submissions of the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, we dispose of the matter observing that the petitioner may appear before the first respondent on 13.04.2011, whereupon the first respondent may give them an opportunity of being heard, and pass appropriate orders in the application filed by the petitioner for stay of collection of penalty. This would be sufficient redressal for the present. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 11.04.2011 Note: Issue C.C today. B/o. vs