IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL 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 : 10744 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 3-6-436 to 438, 2nd Floor, “Naspur House” Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 29, Rep.by its Senior Manager – Finance Mr. V.K.Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT)LTU, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking to declare the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the third respondent by order dated 9.04.2010 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the first respondent not to take coercive steps for the collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs.4,69,99,053/- for the assessment year 2007-2008 pending Appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking owned by the Government of India dealing in refining and sales of petroleum products like diesel, furnace oil, LPG, etc. and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein under AP VAT Act, 2005. The first respondent by an order dated 08.01.2010 has completed the assessment for the period from October, 2007 to March, 2008 and 2008-2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeals before the second respondent paying Rs.67,14,151/- and Rs.77,06,132/- as pre-deposits for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Though the appeals were admitted, the applications seeking stay of the collection of the disputed tax of Rs.4,69,99,053/- and Rs.5,39,42,927/- were disposed of by an order dated 12.3.2010 granting stay on the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred revision before the third respondent and the third respondent by order dated 9.4.2010 has confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent dated 9.4.2010, the first respondent has issued notice dated 23.4.2010 demanding the petitioner to pay 50% of the disputed tax, for both the years. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second and third respondents, they have erroneously rejected to stay the collection of the disputed tax. It is further stated that pending appeal before the second respondent, the issuance of notice dated 23.4.2010 by the first respondent demanding to pay 50% of the disputed tax is illegal. 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 further deposit an amount of Rs.1.00 crore (Rupees one crore only) in addition to the amount already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 30, 2010 MAS