IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18282 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Lakshmi Priya Spinning Mills (P) Limited, Akkampet, Nellore rep. by its Managing Director, Sri D. Prasanna Murthy, S/o. M. Dorai Swamy, Aged 64 yrs., Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Nellore Division, Nellore. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur, Nellore District. .....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 in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent as illegal, improper and also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1067 dated 19.09.1985 and also to set side the common order passed determining the tax for the Assessment Years 2001-02 for an amount of Rs.49,970/- as also the Assessment Year 2002-03 for an amount of Rs.6,01,500/- levied under the APGST Act and forbear the 3rd respondent not to collect the disputed taxes, pending disposal of the appeals before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR *** WRIT PETITION No. 1 8 2 8 2 OF 2008. ORAL ORDER : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari }. Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the ﬁrst respondent as illegal, improper and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 1067, dated 19-9-1985 and to set aside the common order passed determining the tax for the assessment years 2001-02 for an amount of Rs.49,970/- and also the assessment year 2002-03 for an amount of Rs.6,01,500/- levied under the APGST Act and forbear the third respondent not to collect the disputed taxes, pending disposal of the appeals before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, and to grant such other and further relief or reliefs as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner company was assessed by the third respondent for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 under the APGST Act, 1957. The Assessing Authority had granted exemption on a turnover of Rs.12,49,240/- represents sale of cotton yarn to weavers and master weavers which is exemptible as per GO.Ms.No.1067, dated 19-9-1985 for the assessment year 2001-02 and also Rs.1,47,86,805/- for the assessment year 2002-03. The orders of the Assessing Authority was revised by the second respondent on the ground that the sales are not covered by declaration forms through the same was sold to dealers outside the state and has the revised the orders of the third respondent levying tax @ 4% in spite of the speciﬁc provision contemplated under section 8 (2A) of Central Sales Act. Copy of the orders of the third respondent dated 22-4-2004 for the assessment year 2001-02 and dated 24-5-2004 for the assessment year 2002-03 and the Deputy Commissioner dated 24-3-2008 for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 are ﬁled. 3. Challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner had ﬁled appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, as also stay petitions before the ﬁrst respondent and the ﬁrst respondent without any notice of hearing had dismissed stay petition on the ground that there were no declaration forms that were ﬁled. The ﬁling of declaration forms is not necessary under the Central Sales Act and adding the turn over to the APGST Act of the turnover belonging to the interstate sales is illegal and improper and as such is liable to be set aside. There is no further remedy provided under the Act against the rejection orders of the first respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 5. 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 disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 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. 6. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. _________________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR. J. 22-8-2008. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}