IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY 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 : 364 of 2009 Between: M/s. The Thandava Co-Op. Sugars Limited, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam District, Rep. By its Managing Director Mr. T.P.Sivarama Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to declare the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the third respondent granting conditional stay of the collection of disputed tax of Rs.8,82,215/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and to consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for the collection of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-2004 pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in manufacture of sugar and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under APGST Act. The first respondent by order dated 29.3.2007 completed the assessment under APGST Act disallowing claim of the petitioner on the turnover of inter-State sales of molasses. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 26.8.2008. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and also moved stay petition, before the third respondent, which was allowed on the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the balance disputed tax within a period of four weeks. It is case of the petitioner that the cooperative sugar factory is under severe financial stringency and is not in a position to pay the said amount. Hence, the present 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 has granted conditional stay, which the petitioner company is unable to meet. He further submits that the petitioner company has bright chances of success before the Appellate Tribunal and hence, prayed to restrain the respondents from taking coercive steps for the collection 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 six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. 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 22, 2010 MAS