IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10949 of 2009 Between: M/s. Legend Elevators Co., Road No.2 , Devi Residency Enclave, Habsiguda, Hyderabad , Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. S.L.V. Prasad S/o. Sri Vamana Murthy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Nampally St. Road, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer Tarnaka Circle, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Order dt. 28-4-2009 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No. LV (1)/235/2009 for tax period 2007-08 as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 28-04-2009 passed by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner’s revision petition against an order of stay rejection by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has been rejected. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we note that the revision application had been rejected after considering the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kone Elevators (India) Limited[1]. 4. It has been submitted that the issue involved in the case of Kone Elevators (supra) has been referred to a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is still pending. 5. Looking to the above fact and in view of the fact that the petitioner had already paid 50% of the amount of tax payable by it, in our opinion, it would be just if the petitioner is protected during the pendency of the appeal, which has already been filed before respondent No. 2 – the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT). 6. For the aforestated reason, more particularly in the facts of the case, we direct that no further amount of tax shall be recovered from the petitioner during the pedency of the appeal before respondent No.2. 7. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30th June, 2009 ks [1] 140 STC 22