IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH 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 : 6150 of 2010 Between: Sri Manjunatha Oil Company, Yerraguntla, Kadapa District, Rep. By its Proprietor Sri K.V. Satish Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Kadapa, Opp: YSR Guest House, Smith Road, Kadapa and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Mandamus to quash the order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in TMP No. 68 of 2010 in TA No. 727 of 2009 dismissing the petition filed for stay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.4,40,353/- for the assessment year 2002-2003 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in TA No. 727 of 2009, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner company is a proprietary concern dealing in oil seeds, vegetable and oil cakes and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent had completed the assessment for the year 2002-2003, aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kurnool, who by order dated 11.8.2005, allowed the appeal setting aside the assessment order passed by the first respondent. But the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal in exercise of suo motu powers of revision, passed an order dated 27.7.2009 restoring the order passed by the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in TA No.727 of 2009 and also filed TMP No. 68 of 2010 seeking stay of the collection of the disputed tax of Rs.4,40,353/-, which was summarily rejected by the Tribunal, 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 Appellate Tribunal, it has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the Appellate Tribunal, 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 disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order within a period of four 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 18, 2010 MAS