THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NOs.24814, 25916, 26043, 26044 of 2009 4-12-2009 BETWEEN; M/s.Kirby Building Systems Limited rep. by N.Ajaya Babu, Company Secretary ...Petitioner (petitioner in all writ petitions) vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents (Respondents in all writ petitions) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NOs.24814, 25916, 26043, 26044 of 2009 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per RR,J) In all these four writ petitions filed by the very same petitioner common question of law arise and as such they are being disposed of by this common order, after hearing both M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, Advocates for the petitioners and Sri P.Balaji Varma, the Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It would suffice for the purpose of disposal of these four writ petitions, if the facts in W.P.No.24814 of 2009 are noted. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Pre-engineered steel building systems and steel guardrails. They are registered as dealers, under the provisions of the A.P.VAT Act, 2005 and the CST Act, on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Mehdipatnam Circle. On 21-01-2009 the 1st respondent conducted an audit on the business premises of the petitioner. The records for the year 2005-06 were verified and examined on 15-04-2009 and 23-04-2009. The 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 30-04-2009 proposing to levy tax of Rs.24,92,812/- on several grounds. The petitioner filed their objections thereto on 30-04-2009 and sought a personal hearing which was granted to them on 08-06-2009. The 1st respondent, thereafter, passed order dated 08-06-2009 confirming levy of tax of Rs.12,04,642/- on miscellaneous income viz., cancellation of orders, income received (Yard maintenance) and advances written off from customers. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, along with a stay petition, to the 2nd respondent on 15-07-2009. While the appeal is stated to be pending before the 2nd respondent, the stay petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 28-10-2009. Questioning the said order of rejection by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, these writ petitions are filed. M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, Advocates for the petitioners, would submit that, subsequent to the filing of these writ petitions, the petitioner had preferred revisions, against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejecting stay, before the Additional Commissioner(CT), (Legal), Hyderabad on 18-11-2009. Learned counsel would submit that the revisions came up for hearing on 01-12-2009 and the Additional Commissioner, after hearing their submissions, had reserved orders on the said revision petitions. Since the petitioners have preferred revisions before the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejecting stay, we see no reason to entertain a challenge to the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Suffice to hold that, since the petitioner’s revisions have already been heard by the Additional Commissioner and orders are reserved thereupon, ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax till orders are passed by the Additional Commissioner on the four revisions and such orders are communicated to the petitioner. With the above observations, all these writ petitions are disposed of. In the circumstances, without costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 4th DECEMBER 2009. TSNR