IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19746 of 2008 Between: M/s. South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, Kurnool District, Rep. by its Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Sri R. Venkat Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Guntakal. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kurnool. 3 Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of s. 7,65,421/- for the tax assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) arising in pursuance of the stay rejection orders passed by the second respondent dt. 4-8-2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent or to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following order: (contd.2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 1 9 7 4 6 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER : {Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.7,65,421-00 for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) arising out of the rejection order passed by the second respondent dated 04-08-2008 in stay petition No./Appeal No. 5/2008-09 and to pass such other suitable orders as the Division Bench of this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, M/s. South Central Railway, Guntakal, are registered dealers under the APGST Act and are assesses on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent. It is stated that for the assessment year 2004-05, their assessment under the APGST Act had been completed by the ﬁrst respondent through proceedings dated 22-3-2008, who had subjected the second sales of cool drinks, ice creams and biscuits to tax under section 5-C of the APGST Act, rejecting the exemption claimed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent along with stay application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.7,65,421-00. The second respondent through proceedings dated 04-8-2008 rejected stay application. 3. It is further stated that even before the petitioner could ﬁle a revision before the third respondent, the ﬁrst respondent is contemplated to take coercive steps for the recovery of the disputed tax consequent upon the rejection of stay by the second respondent. 3. It is submitted by Sri S. Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner M/s. South Central Railway, Guntakal, that though several contentions were raised before the ﬁrst and second respondents, the ﬁrst and second respondents have refused to grant stay vide the orders impugned herein. The grounds raised in this writ petition may be considered to meet the ends of justice. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the second respondent, the ﬁrst respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 5. In the peculiar 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 M/s. South Central Railway, Guntakal, represented by its Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Mr.R. Venkat Rao, 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 disputed tax. Further the petitioner is directed to ﬁle revision before the third respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On ﬁling of revision, the third respondent is directed to dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible, on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. 6. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 11-09-2008. I s L NB: *MOST URGENT/TOP PRIORITY: (1) Operative Portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (2) Furnish CC of the order positively within three days. // BY ORDER // I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}