IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 1518 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sundaram Motors Rep. by its Deputy Officer (Finance), Sri. K.S. Prabhakar, 67, M.G. Road, Ranigunj, Secunderabad - 500 003. ... PETITIONER AND 1) The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU) Begumpet Division Hyderabad. 2) Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Punjagutta Division Hyderabad. 3) Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) 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 or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.3,41,064/- for the assessment year 2006-07 under the CST Act arising in pursuance of the stay rejection orders of the 3rd respondent dated 09-01-2009 passed in CCT's Ref. No.LIII(2)/770/2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: Oral Order: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Rule. 2. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Standing Counsel, Shri Krishna Koundinya, appearing for the respondents. 3. At the request of the learned advocates, the writ petition is finally heard and disposed of. 4. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated 09.1.2009 whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order of the appellate authority rejecting an application for stay of recovery of the disputed tax during pendency of the appeal, had been rejected. 5. We have heard the learned advocates and have considered the facts of the case. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain C/E1 Forms could not be produced before the assessing authority and the same are to be produced before the appellate authority. It has been submitted that some C/E1 Forms have been produced before the revisional authority when the revision application was pending for hearing. It has also been submitted that at present more than 90% of C/E1 Forms are with the petitioner and the same are to be produced before the Court. It has been, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the fact that the petitioner is having relevant Forms to claim exemption of tax, the appellate authority ought to have stayed the recovery of the disputed tax, during pendency of the appeal. 7. From the facts stated hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the petitioner did not produce the relevant forms before the assessing officer. It is also an admitted fact that the appeal has not been heard so far. Therefore, it would be open to the petitioner to produce the relevant Forms before the appellate authority so that the same can be considered and the amount of tax can be exempted. 8. Insofar as the matter relating to stay of recovery of the disputed tax is concerned, looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot be given full relief as prayed for. It is true that some relevant documents were produced before the revisional authority to exempt tax, but that would not be sufficient. It only shows that the petitioner is having some documents in his possession, which it could not produce before the assessing officer so as to claim exemption of tax. In our opinion, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to pay 75% of the tax determined by the assessing officer during pendency of the appeal. 9. In the result, implementation of the impugned order is stayed during pendency of the appeal on a condition that the petitioner pays 75% of the amount of tax determined by the assessing officer within a period of four weeks from today. The amount of tax paid, if any, shall be given credit to. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions. There will be no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ February 20, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Issue operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (By Order) svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}