IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25263 of 2008 Between: M\s. Sri Venkateswara Sponge & Power (P) Ltd Merlapaka Rep.by its Manager(Finance & Accounts) S.Srinivasa S/o.Veerabhadrudu Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal) FAC office Of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes C.T Complex M.J Road Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Asst Commissioner (CT) LTU Chittoor Division Kurnool 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT) Kurnool Division Kurnool .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus 2 to the impugned proceedings dt 24-10-2008(Errata dt 13-11-2008) in CCT's Ref.L.III (3)/685/2008 issued by the Additional Commissioner(CT) (Legal LTU Hyderabad rejecting the application of mind as the appellant in terms of the statutory requirement for the purpose of maintaining the appeals had already deposited 50% of the disputed tax and accordingly restrain the 2nd respondent namely the Assistant Commissioner(CT) LTU Chittoor Division Chittoor as well the assessing authority namely the Commercial Tax Officer Puttur Circle from initiating any coercive steps for recovery of the balance of the disputed taxes and interest pending disposal of the petitioner's appeal on the file of sales tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad and grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SPL.GP FOR COMMERICAL TAXES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25263 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 24.10.2008 issued by the first respondent– Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Legal (FAC), Hyderabad rejecting the application of the petitioner for stay of collection of tax of Rs.45,75,403/-, as illegal, improper, arbitrary and suffering from non application of mind, as the petitioner, in terms of the statutory requirement for the purpose of maintaining the appeals, had already deposited 50% of the disputed tax. The petitioner is a private limited company situated at Merlapaka in Chittoor District and it is manufacturing Sponge Iron and Iron Billets. It is stated that on the authorization given by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Chittoor Division, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, the second respondent herein conducted the audit of the petitioner-company on 25.09.2007 and proposed to levy tax on transactions of stock transfers to the consignment agent of the petitioner M/s.Sri Balaji Agencies, Gummidipudi and also branch transfers to its branch at the said places by withdrawing the exemption claimed by the petitioner in the prescribed returns under provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is also stated that the petitioner-company filed detailed objections resisting the proposed taxation on the above mentioned transactions, but the second respondent with a view to collect tax, brushed aside the objections and issued proceedings of assessment of CST on 22.02.2008. By virtue of the said proceedings, the petitioner was fastened with an additional skyrocketing demand of Rs.45,75,403/- . Questioning the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, third respondent, but the said appeal was dismissed on 26.08.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and also filed an application for stay of the disputed tax and interest before the first respondent. But, however, the first respondent rejected the stay petition mechanically. Heard both sides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the disputed tax before the second respondent, within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date: 18.11.2008 Note: Furnish CC in three days B/o va