IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15058 of 2008 Between: M/s. Attal Plastics, Hashmathgunj, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Prem Nivas Attal, S/o. Ramnivas Attal R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Sultan Bazar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of A.P., 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 of Mandamus any other appropriate writ or order or direction in declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in demanding disputed sales tax of Rs.1,87,378/- against which the appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, so long as the stay petition is pending before the 2nd respondent is illegal and contrary to law and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed sales tax of Rs.1,87,378/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the Act and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of the first respondent in demanding disputed tax of Rs.1,87,378/- against which appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, so long as the stay petition is pending before the second respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and consequently to grant stay of collection of disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-2005, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture of various types of empty C.C.F. bags and C.C.F. scooter seat covers and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent. While so, the first respondent has assessed the petitioner by order, dated 12.12.2006, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, who has confirmed the assessment order and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, and also moved petition before the second respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax, which was rejected by the second respondent, vide the order impugned herein. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the second respondent, the first 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, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight 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. 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. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan July 14, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}