IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19259 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Agencies, Macherla, rep. by its Proprietor M.Srinivasa Rao S/o. Sriramamurthy Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Taxes Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Guntur-II Division, Guntur. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Macherla, Guntur District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in rejecting the stay petition ﬁled seeking stay of the disputed tax of Rs.2,38,711/- for the assessment year 2003-04 pending appeal before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam by its order dated 15.07.2008 in CCT's Ref.No.LV(4)/477/2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and contrary to the judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal delivered in T.A.No.816/05 and Batch dated 17.10.07 which is binding on the 1st Respondent as per the Full Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 136 STC P.586 and consequently forbear the 3rd respondent from taking any coercive steps pending disposal of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur and grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 19259 OF 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. The present writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the ﬁrst respondent in rejecting the stay petition ﬁled by the petitioner vide order dated 15.07.2008 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 2,38,711/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, pending disposal of the appeal ﬁled by him before the Tribunal. The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the third respondent. While so, the third respondent passed an assessment order on 3.12.2004 in respect of the sales eﬀected by the petitioner with reference to soft drinks purchased from M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola on the ground that soft drinks are taxable under Entry 21 of the VI Schedule at every point of sale. Petitioner contends that the manufacturer has not collected any purchase value towards crate rentals and as per Entry 21, tax should be levied on the bottled soft drinks and as such soft drinks cannot be sold independently and no tax could be levied separately on the crates by showing the value separately and as such the purchase value as claimed by the petitioner has to be taken into consideration as a whole. However, when the assessing authority did not accept the said contention and assessed the amount, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with stay petition, which was dismissed. Challenging the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Tribunal. It also ﬁled an application for stay before the 1st respondent. But, the 1st respondent rejected the same through the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal ﬁled against the order of the assessing authority is pending before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent is not justiﬁed in rejecting the stay application. It is further contended that by virtue of the rejection of stay application, the 3rd respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 6th September, 2008 _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Note: Furnish c.c. in three days B/o pnb