HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No. 14150 of 2010 Date: 02-07-2010 Between M/s Models India ………… Petitioner And The Joint Commissioner (IT) and another ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No. 14150 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business in execution of works contracts, and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. For the year 2004-05, the second respondent passed an order of assessment dated 18-03-2008 treating the transactions of the petitioner as works contracts under Section 5F of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 6(2) of the APGST Rules. While matters stood thus, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, in exercise of his powers under Section 20(2) of the Act, issued notice dated 19-08-2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assessment should not be revised. The petitioner submitted objections on 29-11-2008 contending that the assessment did not necessitate revision. However the revisional authority confirmed the proposed revision by order dated 10-12-2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal, under Section 21 of the Act, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad on 29-04-2010, and filed a petition before the first respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.4,73,850/-. The petitioner contends that the first respondent did not consider the contentions raised by him, and rejected the stay petition in a mechanical manner. It is the petitioner’s case that the transactions of design, manufacture, shop testing, transportation to site, unloading, storage, handling at site, complete erection, testing and commissioning of engineering models with all accessories etc were part of works contract, and not sale; and they had merely executed works contracts and did not carry on business in the sale of goods. Since the substantive Appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, we do not propose to examine the merits of the contentions urged by the petitioner before this Court. Ends of justice would be met if, pending disposal of the Appeal before the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps to recover the tax due on the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax within four weeks from today. The amount, if any, paid towards the disputed tax shall be given credit to. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 02-07-2010 YCR