IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5012 of 2010 Between: M/s. Suresh Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd., 1-3-176/35/22/5-A Bhagyalaxmi Nagar, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad-500 380. ..... PETITIONER V/s. The Deputy Commissioner (Tax Officer, RP Road Circle, Hyderabad & 4-Ors. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya Spl. S.C. for C.T. THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5012 of 2010 O R D E R : {Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meenakumari} Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order in CCT’s Ref.No.L-V(1)09/2010 dated 29-02-2010 passed by the second respondent rejecting the stay and consequential arrears notice dated 23-2-2010 issued by the first respondent, demanding to pay an amount of Rs.16,42,446-00 for the period from February 2008 to June 2009 and the Final Assessment Order dated 29-10-2009 for the period from February 2008 to June 2009 passed by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps for recovery of any amount consequent to notice or orders passed by the Respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of selling, supply/distribution of medical tooth paste such as “Thermoseal” and “RA Thermoseal” and on the rolls of the fourth respondent herein. The first respondent has completed the assessment and proposed to levy differential tax of Rs.1,79,939/- for the period 2007-08; Rs.13,02,117/- for the period 2008-09 and Rs.3,95,005/- for the period 2009-10. The petitioner filed detailed objections on 05-10-2009 to the show cause notice dated 24-09- 2009 stating that the impugned products are medicines hence not excluded from Entry 88 of Schedule-IV of the APVAT Act and are therefore not liable tobe taxed @ 12.5% under residuary item for the period April, 2005 to February 2009. But the Ld. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer after personal hearing on 23-10-2009 passed the order without considering submissions made by the petitioner but confirmed the tax of Rs.18,77,081/- for the period February 2008 to June 2009 on the ground that the petitioner effected sales of medicated goods which are primarily used as tooth paste. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal along with stay application before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Secunderabad Division on 27-11-2009 but the contentions were rejected and the Ld. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad rejected the stay of disputed tax for the said period on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the certificates or prescriptions to prove that the tooth paste sold is a drug and medicine. Aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-2009 passed by the Ld.Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed revision application but the Ld. Additional Commissioner (Legal) on 08-1-2010 but the same was rejected by order dated 29-1-2010 without considering the submissions made by the petitioners. Consequent to the stay rejection order dated 29-1-2010 the Ld.Deputy Commercial Tax Officer issued Arrear Notice dated 23-2-2010 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.16,42,446/- for the period February 2008 to June 2009 within three days from the date of receipt of notice, failing which necessary action would be initiated under the provisions of AP Vat Act, the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the concerned respondent, the concerned respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the concerned respondent, coercive steps are being contemplated for recovery of the disputed tax. 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 tax amount due, as per the impugned order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. 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. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 5, 2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOORTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 2 5 7 8 6 OF 2009 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 9 7 Date: 05-03-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L