IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19633 of 2008 Between: M/s. Khazana Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd., No.6-3-885/7, Sapphire Square, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082,Represented by its Manager Mr.T.L.Venkateswaran ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Punjagutta Division, 5th Floor, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Somajiguda Circle, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the Impugned order Ref: No.CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/581/2008, dated 19.08.2008, passed by the 1st Respondent, as it is contrary to the provisions of law and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.V.RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19633 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per T HE HON’BLE MRS. JUST ICE T .MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the ﬁrst respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.24,31,143/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently, direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2004-05, pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the business of gold and jewellery. According to the petitioner, the third respondent made ﬁnal assessment of the petitioner for the year 2004-05 determining the tax due at Rs.31,40,473/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent along with a stay application. The appeal and stay application were also dismissed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner also ﬁled an application before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.24,31,143/-, pending the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence the writ petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the ﬁrst respondent, the ﬁrst respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the ﬁrst respondent, the third respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 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 today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Dated:10.09.2008 GS/ASP