IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23734 of 2008 Between: M/s. Hyderabad Chemical Products Limited Rep. by its Accounts Officer, Mr. A. Mahendra Babu Bala Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 037. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) VMU-I Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division, 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 6-8-2008 refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.46,00,313/- for the assessment period 2005-06 and 2006-07 under the APVAT Act, pending disposal of the appeal as illegal, arbitrary, unjustiﬁed and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of disputed tax of Rs.46,00,313/-, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent for the assessment period 2005-06 & 2006-07 under the APVAT Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 6.08.2008 assed by the second respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.46,00,313/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.V.A.T. Act and consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for collection of the disputed tax for the year 2005-06 and 2006-2007, pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. The petitioner is a company and a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Fatehnagar Circle, Hyderabad and is engaged in the manufacture of pesticides. The business premises of the petitioner was audited by the ﬁrst respondent on 23.5.2007 and found some irregularities such as short reporting of output tax for the years 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007. As such the ﬁrst respondent issued notices dated 2.2.2008 and 14.3.2008 in Form VAT 305-A determining the assessment, to which the petitioner ﬁled objections. However, the objections ﬁled by the petitioner did not ﬁnd favour with the respondent and an order came to be passed on 26.4.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and also paid 12.5% of the disputed tax. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also ﬁled an application seeking stay of the collection of the disputed tax, but by order dated 6.8.2008, which is impugned in this writ petition, the stay was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the Assessing authority is contemplating to take 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 tax amount due, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. 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 Ramesh Ranganathan October 31, 2008 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs //BO// MAS12