IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH 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 : 23188 of 2009 Between: M/s. NSN Reddy & Company, Ubalanka, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District, Rep. By its Managing Partner Mr. N.Srinivasa Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The. Commercial Tax Officer, Mandapeta, East Godavari District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 23.01.2009 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.4,30,580/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment year 2002- 2003 pending appeal in TA No.82 of 2009 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal at Visakhapatnam, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of execution of works contracts and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2002-2003 by order dated 2.7.2007, which was, however, revised by the second respondent withdrawing the exemptions granted by the first respondent, by order dated 29.10.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, and also moved stay petition, which was summarily rejected by the third respondent, vide the order impugned in the writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent without considering the fact that the Bench is vested with incidental powers to pass interim orders pending appeal, staying the collection of the disputed tax, has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the third respondent, the first respondent is contemplating 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 demanded amount, as per the impugned order or on before 31.03.2010 and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in TA No.82 of 2009. 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 Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 2, 2010 MAS