IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16409 of 2008 Between: M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Limited, 126, M.G. Road, (Near Paradise Circle) Secunderabad, Rep. by its Manager-Accounts, Sri R.P. Satathy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, R.P. Road Circle, Secunderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) (FAC) 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 or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 14,57,105/- for the assessment year 2003-04 under the APGST Act arising in pursuance of the stay rejection order of the third respondent dt. 10-6-2008 passed in CCT's Ref.No. LV (1)/402/2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal or to pass such further or other orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY 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 10.06.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay collection of the disputed tax of Rs.14,57,105/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the respondent No.1 not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-04 pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. The petitioner is a Company engaged in execution of works contract and is an assessee on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent herein. The ﬁrst respondent has finalised the assessment for the year 2003-2004 by his proceedings dated 06.07.2005 determining the gross and net turnovers at Rs.40,70,13,480 and Rs.30,02,20,898/- respectively. While so, the second respondent has revised the assessment and withdrew the exemption on a turn over of Rs.1,82,13,816/-. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal against the said order before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and ﬁled an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax before the third respondent. But the third respondent, by order dated 10.06.2008, refused to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax. Hence, the present petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the third respondent, the ﬁrst respondent 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 due tax amount, 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 July 30, 2008 Copy by 1.8.2008 //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}