IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 12107, 12108 AND 12109 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO : 12107 of 2009 Between: M/s. Eagle Distilleries, No.2/13(10), 2nd floor, DNR Towers Kotireddy Street, Kadapa, Kadapa District, rep. by its Proprietor Mr. M. Anand Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing further deposit of 25% of the disputed tax for grant of stay pending appeal before the Hon`ble STAT through the impugned orders dt. 17.4.2009 in CCT.Ref.No. LIII(3)/130/2009 for the tax period 1.4.2006 TO 31.32007 under APVAT Act 2005 in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the disputed tax as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and onerous and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon`ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent dated 22.5.2009 and also declare that tax under Section 4(4) can not be levied since the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor itself is not exempt under the APVAT Act 2005 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax WRIT PETITION NO : 12108 of 2009 Between: M/s.Eagle Distilleries, No.2/13(10), 2nd floor,DNR Towers Kotireddy street, Kadapa, Kadapa District, rep.by its Proprietor Mr.M.Anand Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing further deposit of 25% of the dispute tax for grant of stay pending appeal before the Hon`ble STAT through the impugned orders dated 17.4.2009 in CCT.Ref.No. LIII(3)/131/2009 for the tax period 1.4.2007 TO 31.10.2007 under APVAT Act 2005 in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the disputed tax as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and onerous and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon`ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent dated 22.5.2009 and also declare that tax under Section 4(4) can not be levied since the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor itself is not exempt under the APVAT Act 2005 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax WRIT PETITION NO : 12109 of 2009 Between: M/s. Eagle Distilleries, No.2/13(10), 2nd Floor, DNR Towers, Kotireddy Street, Kadapa, Kadapa District, Represented by its Proprietor Mr.M.Anand Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in directing further deposit of 25% of the disputed tax for grant of stay pending appeal before the Hon'ble STAT through the impugned orders dt. 17.4.2009 in CCT Ref No. LIII(3)/129/2009 for the tax period 1.4.2005 to 30.3.06 under APVAT Act 2005 in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the disputed tax as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and onerous and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent dt. 22.5.09 and also declare that tax under Section 4(4) can not be levied since the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor itself is not exempt under the APVAT Act 2005 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) As common legal issues are involved in these petitions, all the petitions are heard together. Upon hearing the learned advocates, all the petitions are admitted and are finally heard today. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), applications for interim relief were filed before the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, praying for stay of recovery. The stay applications filed by the petitioner have been rejected and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that during the pendency of the appeals, no coercive steps be taken for recovery of the amount of tax, which is the subject matter of the appeals. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocates, we have come to know that 50% of the disputed amount has already been paid by the petitioner. As the appeals are pending before the Tribunal, we do not desire to go into the facts of the case. However, we find that prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner for some protection in respect of payment of tax. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has paid 50% of the disputed amount of tax. In our opinion, the respondent authorities should not recover further amount during the pendency of the appeals, which are pending before the Tribunal. 4. In the circumstances, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the remaining amount, which has remained unpaid, till the appeals are finally disposed of. 5. We hereby clarify that this is an interim order and the Tribunal shall not be influenced by the finding that prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner. Without being influenced by the said observation, we are sure that the Tribunal shall decide the appeals pending before it. 6. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has requested for a direction that the Tribunal should decide the appeals at an early date. 7. The petitioner should file an application making out a case for early hearing of the appeals before the Tribunal and if the Tribunal is of the view that the matter requires prompt consideration, it shall pass an appropriate order after hearing the Revenue. 8. The petitions stand disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 20th July, 2009 ks