THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.14933 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Dr. S.R.R.Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is a registered dealer, on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Jangaon, both under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. He is a works contractor at Hanamkonda executing works for the Government of Andhra Pradesh. For the assessment year 2002-03, the petitioner was assessed by the third respondent to tax by order dated 04.08.2004 and was held liable to pay tax of Rs.2,97,896/-. The second respondent initiated proceedings for Revision of the assessment order and, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, rejected the objections and held that the petitioner was liable to pay tax of Rs.2,22,842/-. The said order of revision was given effect to by the third respondent, and a demand notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay tax of Rs.2,74,113/-. Aggrieved by the order under revision, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal {“STAT” for brief}, which is said to be pending as on date. The petitioner also approached the first respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. The petitioner contended that the cost of establishment of Rs.3,88,439/-; depreciation of Rs.1,80,374/-; tax element of Rs.2,62,684/-, expenses relating to labour of Rs.6,81,005/-; departmental recoveries of Rs.1,94,215/-, seignorage charges of Rs.1,14,817/-; metal spreading labour of Rs..4,65,230/- and gravel spreading labour of Rs.4,98760/-; was not exigible to tax. The first respondent, however, rejected the said application. Before us, Dr. S.R.R. Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the very same contentions in support of his submission that the aforesaid items of expenditure were not exigible to tax. Since the substantive appeal is still pending before the STAT, it would not be appropriate for us to examine the merits of these contentions. Ends of justice would be met if, pending disposal of the appeal in T.A.No.2 of 2008, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the tax due, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax with the third respondent within four {4} weeks from today. Amount paid, if any, towards the disputed tax shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 29th June 2010 RRB