THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.24061 of 2009 ORDER: (PER GR,J) Heard Sri M.Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes for the respondents. The order of the first respondent dated 12.08.2009 declining to grant stay is impugned. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in manufacture of Chemical Acids, registered under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘the CST Act’) and continues to be a VAT dealer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. In respect of the earlier assessment year 2004-05, the second respondent passed the assessment order dated 01.01.2008 under the CST Act determining the net turnover at Rs.23,17,190/- and levying tax of Rs.1,06,380/-. During this year, the petitioner claimed exemption on a transit sale turnover of Rs.15,06,172/- under Section 6(2) of the CST Act and supported the said claim by filing ‘C’ forms and ‘E1’ forms for the entire disputed turnover of Rs.15,06,172/-. The Assessing Authority rejected the said claim on the ground that the petitioner had paid the freight charges after the endorsement of the transit sale, and therefore, there is a break in the transit assessment and the sales cannot be considered as transit sales, but ought to be considered as taxable inter-state sales, and, liable to be taxed accordingly. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed by the order dated 30.04.2009. The petitioner preferred a further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Andhra Pradesh in T.A.No.567 of 2009. The petitioner also moved the first respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.1,06,380/-. It requires to be stated that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax as a condition precedent to the appeal preferred before the STAT. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that since the statutory requirements of Section 6(2) of the CST Act have been complied with by furnishing all the relevant forms including form ‘E1’, and it is not the contention or finding by the first respondent that physical delivery of goods has been effected in the petitioner’s favour, the mere fact that the petitioner had paid the freight charges would not detract from the legal consequence of a transit sale occurring. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has an eminently arguable the case in the substantive appeal before the STAT, Hyderabad in T.A.No.567 of 2009, and as the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax preceding the institution of the appeal before the STAT, it would meet the ends of justice if the respondents are restrained from initiating coercive steps to recover the balance disputed tax, pending disposal of T.A.No.567 of 2009 by the STAT. We clarify that nothing in this order is to be construed as an expression by this Court on the substantive merits of the appeal pending before the STAT. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents not to collect the balance disputed tax of Rs.1,06,380/-, pending disposal of T.A.No.567 of 2009 by the STAT, Hyderabad. In the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 09.11.2009 va