THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition Nos. 25492 of 2009 Dated: 27-11-2009 Between: M/s Kranthi Constructions, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director Sri Pratap Reddy …Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents. Order: (Per GR, J) The order dated 26-10-2009 of the 2nd respondent declining grant of stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 2,05,925-00, pending the appeal by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 4th respondent under APGST Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) engaged in the business of executing civil works for the Irrigation Department of the State. The petitioner entered into a contract with the Irrigation Department for constructing the earth dam at Ravula Vagu in Adilabad District. The officers of the 4th respondent visited the petitioner’s firm and inspected its books of accounts. A formal notice of assessment was issued calling upon the petitioner to produce all the relevant records for the assessment year 2003-04. Eventually, the order of assessment was passed by the 4th respondent on 28-3-2008 determining the gross turnover at Rs.1,62,24,305-00, the exempted turnover having been reckoned at Rs.1,27,467-00 and thereupon the net turnover was determined at Rs.1,60,96,838-00, as proposed in the notice preceding assessment. A tax liability of Rs.21,55,166-00 was determined. The 3rd respondent exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 (2) of the Act issued a show-cause notice dated 18-6-2009 and after due process, determined the net turnover at Rs.1,77,68,383-00 as against the assessing authority’s net turnover determined at Rs.1,60,96,838-00 and assessed the tax due thereon at Rs.14,21,271-00. The petitioner applied to the 2nd respondent for stay of the revisional order passed by the 3rd respondent, against which he has preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. By the order impugned, the 2nd respondent declined to grant stay holding that though the petitioner claims that the recoveries relate to other items such as Income Tax and Tax Deduction at Source etc., the petitioner failed to furnish the detailed account of the recoveries disclosing the recoveries under each of the heads separately. In the absence of such details, the revisional authority held that the entire amount relates to the value of the goods supplied by the contractee on cost recovery basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that additional material has been furnished and brought on record before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal disclosing the break-up of the amounts towards Income Tax and Tax Deduction at Source and the other statutory levies and therefore, the impugned order ought to be interfered with. We find no force in the above submission. The petitioner has neither marshalling the material relating to the deduction about the Income Tax and Tax Deduction at Source and other statutory levies before the revisional authority or before the 2nd respondent along with its application for stay preferred before the said respondent. The order of the 2nd respondent declining to grant stay suffers from no infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th November, 2009. GRR