THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTHOSH MOHUNTHA WRIT PETITION No. 8540 & 8613 of 2011. COMMON ORDER:( Per GR,J) Heard Sri. Dwarkanath, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Balaji Varma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department. By two separate orders dt. 15.2.2011 (erroneously recorded as 15.2.2010), the Appellate Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner against the final assessment order dt. 24.4.2010 and 25.5.2010 respectively for the period April, 2008 to September, 2008 and October, 2008 to March, 2010 respectively under the provisions of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005. The dispute relates to whether the goods dealt with by the petitioner such as “Chlormint and Happydent White’ fall within entry 117 of Schedule-IV of the 2005, an entry which enumerates Ayurvedic and Homeopathic products manufactured under the license issued by the licensing authority and under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Against the impugned order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has preferred appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Since the Appellate Tribunal has no power or authority to grant interim stay, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions for declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in determining the disputed tax pursuant to the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner dismissing the appeals, is arbitrary and seeks stay, pending disposal of the appeals by the STAT. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos. 25475 and 25501 of 2010 aggrieved by the orders of the Joint Commissioner declining to grant stay pending the appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. These writ petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the Judgement dt. 20.12.2010 directing the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of disputed tax on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax in respect of two assessments, within a specified period, after giving credit to the amounts, if any, already deposited. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner has relied on a ruling of the Authority for clarification and Advance Ruling in its proceedings in A.R.Com/8/2009 dt. 2.7.2009 wherein Ayurvedic and homeopathic products, manufactured under license issued by the authorities concerned under Drugs and Cosmetics Act were considered and held that as Chewing Gum is a sugar confectionery and a mouth freshener, it does not fall within entry 117 of Schedule IV of the 2005 Act and rejected the appeals. However, for the reasons alike as recorded by this Court in its Judgement dt. 20.10.2010, we are inclined to direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for collecting the disputed tax for the two assessment periods, pending disposal of the appeals by the STAT, particularly in view of the fact that 50% of the disputed tax was already paid pursuant to the Judgement of this Court in W.P.No. 25475 and 25501 of 2010. With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 02.08.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTHOSH MOHUNTHA WRIT PETITION No. 8540 & 8613 of 2011. COMMON ORDER: 02.08.2011.