THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32801 of 2010 January 21, 2011 Between: M/s.Carrier Airconditioning & Refrigeration Limited, Hyderabad Represented by its Manager Taxation, Mr.B.S.Narasimha … Petiti And The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) (Legal), Nampally, Hyderabad and others ... Respond THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32801 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order under challenge in this writ petition is the one passed by the respondent dated 25.11.2010 whereby the petitioner’s revision, against the o of rejection of stay by the second respondent dated 25.10.2010, was dismisse The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, dealer registered with the third respondent both under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the Central Sales Tax 1956. It is engaged in the business of supply of air conditioners and A execution of works contracts. For the assessment year 2008-2009, the respondent levied tax on the sale of air conditioners of Rs.6,11,28,708/- at 12 for Rs.76,41,089/- and, on the sale of copper tubes/pipes etc. Rs.2,31,105,985/- at 4% for Rs.9,24,239/-. The total tax due and payable by petitioner was determined at Rs.82,65,328/- and, after deducting the tax paid petitioner was called upon to pay the balance tax at Rs.51,95,940/-. Aggrie thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. A with the appeal, they also filed an application seeking stay of the order of third respondent pending disposal of the appeal. By order dated 25.11.2010 second respondent dismissed the stay application on the ground that evidence, to support the petitioner’s plea, had not been submitted. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision to the respondent on 09.11.2010. The first respondent, in his order dated 25.11.2 noted the petitioner’s contention that the assessing authority had erroneo levied tax on the receipts relating to annual maintenance contracts o conditioners treating them as sales turnover, and not as works contracts; and they had opted for payment of tax by way of composition, the turnove Rs.6,11,28,708/- relating to annual maintenance contract should be taxed on 4%. The first respondent observed that the third respondent, while propo levy of tax on the entire turnover at 12.5% treating it as relating to sales o conditioners had, after examining the objections filed by the petitioner, levied only at 4% on the turnover of Rs.2,31,05,985/-, and it is only with regards turnover of Rs.6,11,28,708/-, that the assessing authority had held that it rel to the sales turnover of air conditioners. The first respondent further held tha petitioner did not file any evidence to show that the disputed turnover did represent sale of air conditioners, and it related only to annual maintena contracts. The order of the first respondent, exercising discretion not to grant stay reasoned order. The view taken by the first respondent cannot be said to perverse necessitating interference by this Court in the proceedings under Ar 226 of the Constitution of India. We, however, refrain from making observation on the merits in as much as the substantive appeal is still pen on file of the second respondent. Ends of justice would, therefore, be met i second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal itself within a perio two weeks from today. There shall be a direction to the second respon accordingly. Sri P.Balaji Verma, the learned Special Standing Coun undertakes to inform the second respondent of his obligations under this or Subject to the above observations the writ petition fails and is, accordin dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO ___________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN January 21, 2011 NOTE: Disptach order copy today. (By order) YS