THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.17995 and 18052 of 2010 Dated:17.08.2010 Between: M/s.VITP (P) Limited. …Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.17995 and 18052 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These two matters by the same petitioner against the same respondents can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. The petitioner is a real estate company. They provide infrastructure support for software companies at their facility, M/s.Venenburg I.T.Park Private Limited, Madhapur, Hyderabad. Besides providing working space, they also provide facilities like parking space, cafeteria, centralized air conditioning, security services, fire alarms and all user friendly facilities for software industry. The first respondent, after issuing a show cause notice under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act), and after obtaining the petitioner’s objection/reply, passed assessment order dated 30.03.2010 demanding Value Added Tax (VAT) of Rs.92,98,615/- (in the impugned order assailed in W.P.No.17995 of 2010), and demanding Rs.79,07,859/- (in the impugned order assailed in W.P.No.18052 of 2010). Aggrieved by these, the petitioner preferred two separate appeals before the second respondent. Their prayer for stay of recovery was rejected on 30.06.2010. They then preferred revisions before the third respondent. Pending revisions, the first respondent issued notice dated 07.07.2010 requesting the petitioner to pay the tax demanded in seven days on the pain of facing coercive proceedings under the Act. Apprehending coercive extraction of the impugned tax, they are before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that arguments are already heard by the revisional authority. In view of this, it would not be proper for us to express any opinion. If ultimately any adverse order is passed in the revisions against refusal of stay, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Therefore, observing that the third respondent may pass appropriate orders in the revisions as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 23.08.2010, we decline to entertain these writ petitions. The Writ Petitions, subject to the above observation, are dismissed. No costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 17.08.2010 vs