THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22526 of 2010 Dated:15.09.2010 Between: M/s. Sri Latha Enterprises, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, rep., by its Proprietrix L.Surya Kumari .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.22526 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act, for brevity) on the rolls of the fourth respondent. For the assessment year 2003-2004, the petitioner’s total turnover stood at Rs.30,44,210/-. They contend that, as they are dealers in milk and food products including UHT Milk (Ultra Heated Temperature), the said turnover of Rs.30,44,210/- is exempted. This plea was accepted, and the fourth respondent, accordingly, passed the assessment order. However, the third respondent issued a revisional show cause notice and, after obtaining objections, passed orders on 09.04.2010 levying 12% tax on the turnover of Rs.30,44,210/-. Be it noted that the third respondent did not agree with the fourth respondent that the petitioner would be entitled for the exemption granted by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 31.01.2000. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) and statedly paid 25% of the disputed tax at the time of appeal. The petitioner then approached the second respondent for stay of recovery of the tax by impugned order dated 23.07.2010. After coming to a prima facie conclusion that UHT Milk is not exempted under the relevant notification, the second respondent rejected the stay petition. This is assailed in this Writ Petition. The counsel for petitioner places strong reliance on G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 31.01.2000. After perusing the same, as well as the impugned order, we are satisfied, prima facie, that the exercise of interlocutory jurisdiction by the second respondent does not suffer from any grave error apparent on the face of the record, and the discretion is exercised judiciously. We, however, hasten to add that our prima facie opinion does not preclude the STAT to consider the appeal on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. Statedly, the petitioner paid 25% of the disputed tax. If that be so, we leave it open to the petitioner to pay the balance of the disputed tax within four weeks from today. The petitioner would be entitled to refund of the amount if, ultimately, they succeed before the STAT. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15.09.2010 KH A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published by the District Collector, Krishna, on 05.09.2006, proposing to acquire Ac.0.81 cents of land in survey No.402/30/4b of Chodavaram Village, Pena Mandal, Krishna District for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor. The petitioner is the owner of the same having purchased it in the year 1990. At present she is residing in united states. A notice proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, was issued. Since the petitioner is not residing in the village, it was served upon her father. It is stated that the father of the petitioner is said to have informed the respondent that he has no instructions in the matter. The enquiry was concluded and a notification under Section 6 of the Act was published. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the entire proceedings. She contends that the acquisition of road fertile agricultural lands for the purpose of providing house sites, a policy to that effect was enunciated by the Government and that no enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held in the eye of law. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations. It is stated that the notice under Section 5 of the Act was served upon none other than the father of the petitioner and still no objections were raised. It is stated that the procedure prescribed by law was followed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for land Acquisition. The petitioner does not attribute any defects to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. As required under the Act, the enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted. The petitioner is residing abroad. Therefore, the notice was served upon her father. Objections, if any, ought to have been raised by or on behalf of the petitioner. However, no such objections were filed. The respondents proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner has no objection for acquisition and accordingly issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Though the policy framed by the Government is to dis.. acquisition of fertile lands for providing house sites, it cannot be said that there is absolute point in this regard. Much would depend upon the suitability of the lands for house sites and availability of non- agricultural land for such purpose. These, however, are matters which needs to be projected in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has to blame herself for her non-representation in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Even according to her the notice was served upon her father. There cannot be any better person held the petitioner in such enquiry than her father. The opportunity was not availed. Even before this Court it is not urged as to how the acquisition is opposed to law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the acquisition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 31.05.2010 GJ