IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 1930 OF 2008 Dated : February 4, 2008 Between: M/s. Panchal Steels, Rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.Jyotsna M.Panchal, W/o Mahendar Panchal, R/o:Erragadda, Hyderabad. Petitioner AND The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Nampally, Hyderabad and another Respondents THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 1930 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 6.11.2007 made in Appeal No. PV/46/2007-08 rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,76,075/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the second respondent not to collect the disputed tax of Rs.1,76,075/- for the period from June, 2005 to September, 2005, pending appeal before the first respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a dealer in iron and steel and registered on the rolls of the second respondent herein. The second respondent, on receipt of information from the Inspecting Authority viz., The Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, completed the assessment for the period from June, 2005 to September, 2005 and levied a tax of Rs.1,76,075/- on 16.6.2007, which was appealed by the petitioner herein, being Appeal No. P/199/2007, before the first respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, the second respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 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 deposit half of the disputed tax amount within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, which is subject matter of dispute in the Appeal before the Appellate Authority – 1st respondent herein. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________ G.ROHINI, J. February 4, 2008 MAS