IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 18283 of 2009 Between: M/s.Sri Rama Oil Mill, 7/1597, Andhra Kesari Road Proddatur, Kadapa District, AP rep.by its Partner Sri Narala Prabhakar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh II Floor, C.T.Building, M.J.Road, Namaplly,Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Kadapa, Smith Road, Opp to Y.S.Guest House, Kadapa .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particualrly in the nature of mandamus declaring the impugned Stay Rejection Order in CCT.Ref.L.III(3)/263/2009 dated 15.7.2009 passed by the First respondent as illegal, and unsustainbale and set aside the same and consequently grant stay of collection of the disputed itax of Rs.11,05,279- 00 for the Assesmsnet year 2004-05 C.S.T.pending disposal of the Appeal in TA.No.352 of 2009 pending before the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 18283 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per The Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) By the impugned order dated 15.07.2009, the first respondent declined grant of stay. Petitioner is a partnership firm registered for assessment under the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the rolls of the second respondent for its business in Ground Nut Oil and Cake. As part of its business, the petitioner sends Ground Nut Cake to its commission agents in other states on consignment sale basis. These agents after receiving the goods effect sales and after deducting their commission, local taxes and other incidental charges remit the balance to the petitioner along with ‘F’ forms and Sale Patties. The second respondent while passing the order of assessment dated 29.01.2006 for the assessment year 2004-05 under the CST Act granted exemption on a turnover of Rs.22,00,000/- towards consignment sales claimed as such by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kadapa exercising suo motu powers under revision under Section 20(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 read with Section 9(2) of the C.S.T Act, 1956 by the order dated 31.03.2009 revised the assessment order and levied tax on the consignment sales as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have reported this quantity of sales as sales in the subsequent year 2005-06 and 2007-08 and to have furnished F forms and sale patties to the assessing officer during these subsequent years while showing these quantities as closing stock during the assessment year 2004-05 and as opening stock during the next assessment year. The revisional authority passed the order of revision and rejected the claim as to consignment sales on the ground that the turnover was not covered by the F forms and sale patties which are to be filed. Against the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.03.2009, the petitioner preferred appeal to the STAT in T.A. No.352 of 2009 and deposited 25% of the disputed tax for preferring the appeal. The petitioner also filed a stay petition before the first respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the STAT. This was rejected by the order impugned whereby the first respondent inter alia recorded that a perusal of the statement filed by the dealer shows that the goods dispatched in the year 2004-05 were sold by the petitioner’s agents in the same year in most of the cases as disclosed by the dates of sale patties and F forms, but the petitioner failed to account for these sales during 2004-05 and had accounted for the same only in the year 2007-08 for which there was no explanation. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and in view of the fact that the substantive appeal of the petitioner is pending before the STAT, we consider it appropriate to order that the respondents shall not initiate any coercive measures against the petitioner for recovery of the disputed tax in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 covered by the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kadapa dated 31.03.2009 which is the subject matter of T.A. No.352 of 2009 before the STAT, on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax after taking credit for the amount if any, already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from today. In default of such deposit, the stay granted herein shall stand dissolved without further reference to this Court. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 06-10-2009 _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR /ASP