IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10600 OF 2010 Between: M/s. GSL coal Sales Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 142-C, Innovation Apartments, P.G. Road, Secunderabad Rep. By its Director Sri Gurpreet Singh Lamba ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer (CT) Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking to set aside the order dated 22.2.2010 passed in appeal No. BV/59/2009-10 by the second respondent and the consequential demand notice dated 12.3.2010 issued by the first respondent to pay an amount of Rs.7,64,313/- towards the disputed tax, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to restrain the respondents from taking coercive steps for recovery thereof for the assessment year 2005-2006 pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of providing transportation solutions to various types of products and is in possession of fleet of transit mixers used for transporting the ready mix concrete and is a registered dealer on the rolls of first respondent. The petitioner entered into an agreement on 1.10.2002 with M/s. Grasim Industries Limited and agreed to supply five vehicles to transport ready mix concrete from the plant to various customers in Hyderabad city. While so, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 6.8.2008 proposing to levy tax of Rs.15,28,626/- on the ground that it has transferred the right to use the transit mixers to M/s. Grasim Industries Limited and the amounts so received are liable to tax, to which the petitioner filed written objections but, however, the first respondent by order dated 21.10.2008 completed the assessment demanding the proposed tax for the year 2005-2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta, Hyderabad. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued notice dated 19.06.2009 demanding the petitioner to pay disputed tax of Rs.15,28,626/- for the year 2005-2006 and subsequently issued notice dated 29.07.2009 to the petitioner’s bank to pay the said sum, which has effected payment of Rs.13,24,186/-. On the direction from the respondent No.1 when the petitioner approached for lifting the bank attachment, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs and the respondent No.1 lifted the bank attachment on 11.9.2009. The appeals filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal were disposed of by order dated 30.11.2009. The respondent No.1 issued notice dated 19.11.2009 demanding the petitioner to pay disputed tax of Rs.13,37,547/- within three days. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved thereby, filed WP No. 29226 of 2009 which was, however, dismissed as infructuous. It is also stated that the first respondent issued notice dated 14.12.2009 demanding the petitioner to pay 50% of the disputed tax of Rs.15,28,626/- in terms of orders in WP No. 26529 of 2009, which according to the petitioner is not correct. However, the petitioner made payment of Rs.5,73,234/-. The respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 22.02.2010 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the assessment order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the first respondent herein. Pursuant to the said dismissal, the first respondent has issued demand notice dated 12.03.2010 directing the petitioner’s bank to pay an amount of Rs.7,64,313/- towards the disputed tax for the year 2005-2006 within seven days and sought for freezing the petitioner’s bank account. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the appellate authority for granting stay, no stay was granted and pursuant to the dismissal order dated 22.2.2010, the first respondent has issued notice seeking to freeze the petitioner’s bank account. It is further submitted that pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, such a notice ought not to have been issued by the first respondent. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner paying 50% of the disputed tax. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amount of tax. The amounts, if any, already been paid by the petitioner, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 30, 2010 MAS