THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 25246 of 2009 Dated: 20-11-2009 Between: M/s Aster Tele Services Private Limited, Secunderabad …Petitioner and Asst. Commissioner (CT) LTU, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad and others …Respondents. Oral order: (Per GR, J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, the learned special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes. By the order impugned dated 7-11-2009 the 2nd respondent declined to grant stay in the revision preferred by the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the AP VAT Act, 2005 (for short ‘the 2005 Act’) and the CST Act, 1956 and is registered as such on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. The final order of assessment under the CST Act, dated 25-7-2009 was passed levying tax at Rs.31,15,905-00 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for concessional rate of tax on the ground that they failed to submit C Forms, E1 Forms and F Forms. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent accompanied with an application for stay (of the order of assessment), on 28-8-2009. The 3rd respondent declined stay by an order dated 30-9-2009. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed a revision before the 2nd respondent. While the revision was pending, the 1st respondent issued an Arrears Notice on 9-11-2009 directing the petitioner to pay tax of Rs.15,57,952-00 within the stipulated time, failing which coercive steps will be taken to recover the tax liability under Section 29 of the 2005 Act apart from the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The application for stay was rejected by the impugned order on three grounds; (a) that there is a contradiction in the revision claim, namely that while the disputed tax is shown at Rs.31,15,906-00, the petitioner seeks stay for an amount of Rs.81,40,927-00; (b) that the petitioner did not enclose the order of assessment to enable the revisional authority to examine the contentions in the revision with reference to the assessment order; and (c) that the petitioner, even though claims that the statutory E1 Forms and C Forms were filed before the Appellate Authority, failed to state clearly as to what turnover was subjected to tax by the Assessing Authority in the absence of E1 Forms and C Forms and what turnover subjected to a higher rate of tax in the absence of C Forms. We find no error in the application of law or perversity in exercise of discretion by the 2nd respondent-revisional authority declining to grant stay, warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 20th November, 2009. GRR