IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 11491 of 2008 Between: M/s Ingersoll Rand (India)Ltd., Ashirwad, Pendersghast Road, Secunderabad. Rep by its Officer-Administration Mr.R.Madhusudhan. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, S.D. Road Circle, Secunderabad. 2 Additional Commissioner (CT)(Legal), A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Branch Manager, Bank of India, M.G. Road Branch, Secunderabad. ...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not passing any proceedings in the application filed under Rule 50 of APGST Rules by the petitioner for the assessment year 2003-2004 and raising a demand of Rs.12,83,440/- as against the demand of Rs.4,93,000/- as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently grant stay of collection of balance disputed demand of Rs.7,90,440/- (Rs.12,83,440/- - Rs.4,93,000/-) for the assessment year 2003-2004 under APGST Act, pending disposal of the application dated 10.03.2008 before the 1st respondent and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX MR. K. RAJI REDDY SPL.SC For CT The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2008 under which a sum of Rs.12,83,440/- is demanded. 2. The demand made against the petitioner is traceable to the order of assessment for the years 2003-2004 whereunder a sum of Rs.4,93,000/- was assessed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was allowed. However, in the revision, the second respondent had set aside the order of the appellate authority. Based upon the order passed in the revision, the impugned demand is issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the original order of assessment is sustained by taking away the relief granted in the appeal its liability would be only Rs.4,93,000/- and therefore, the demand for Rs.12,83,440/- cannot be raised. It is represented that the petitioner filed an application under Rule 50 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules (for short ‘APGST Rules’) with a prayer to rectify the mistake. His grievance is that even while the stay application is pending coercive steps are being taken to recover the disputed amount. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and heard the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 5. It is not in dispute that the amount demanded in the impugned order is relatable to the original assessment order dated 22.01.2004 that was the subject matter of the appeal and thereafter, a suo motto revision. Admittedly, the amount assessed under that was Rs.4,93,000/- and even if the same is treated as valid, the liability cannot rise to Rs.12,83,440/-. 6. The question as to whether the present demand can be based upon the order passed by the second respondent in the revision needs to be examined in the application filed by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps can be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, pending disposal of the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 50 of the APGST Rules before the second respondent, further steps in pursuance of the impugned order are stayed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J May 28, 2008 DSK