IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14268 of 2008 Between: M/s IVR Construction limited, (presently known as IVRCL Infrastructures & Projects Ltd.,) M-22/3RT, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 057, Rep by its Joint General Manager, Mr.Y.Ch.Siva Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commerical Tax Officer, Agapura Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner(CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax and contemplating to take coercive steps during the pendency of the appeal and stay petition before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P. Hyderabad as against the order of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and contrary to law declare by the Hon'ble Court in Anab- E-Shahi Wines & Distilleries (P) Ltd., case (98 STC Page 386) and restrain the 1st respondent for recovery of the disputed Tax of Rs. 5,14,401/- for the assessment year 1997-98 under the APGST Act, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare action of the first respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax, pending Appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, preferred against the order of the third respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to restrain the first respondent from recovering the disputed tax of Rs.5,14,401/- for the assessment year 1997-98 under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Company engaged in executing civil constructions and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The first respondent passed Assessment Order dated 8.11.1998 and reassessment order dated 28.3.2000, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the second respondent and the same was allowed by order dated 17.6.2000. This order of the second respondent was revised by the third respondent and issued proceedings dated 15.10.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal in TA No.206 of 2004 before the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal. Along with the Appeal, the petitioner also filed stay petition, which is pending and, therefore, the first respondent has no authority to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. The petitioner, aggrieved thereby, filed the present writ petition is filed. 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 since the appeal and stay petition are pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and no orders are passed thereon, the insistence of the first respondent to pay the disputed tax and taking coercive steps for its recovery, is contrary to law. We have gone through the record. We feel that the interest of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending Appeal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the tax demanded. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount 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 steps for recovery of the balance amount pending appeal. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan. July 4, 2008 Copy by 8.7.2008 //BO// MAS