THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 24879 of 2009 Dated: 1-2-2010 Between: M/s Madava Constructions, rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner and The Addl. Commissioner (CT)(Legal)((FAC), Hyderabad and others …Respondents. Oral Order: (Per GR, J) The order of the 1st respondent dated 29-9-2009 declining grant of stay is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioner is a firm engaged in executing works contracts and registered as a dealer on the rolls of the 3rd respondent. For the assessment year 2004-05 it had executed works contracts of laying bituminous roads by entering into contract with the Public Works and the Panchayat Raj Departments in Karimnagar District. For this purpose, the petitioner claims to have purchased bitumen pursuant to the agreement with PWD and Panchayat Raj Departments, from the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai. The bitumen is stated to have moved to the work site from Chennai, asserted to be an inter-State movement occasioned by the contract with the Departments concerned. The 3rd respondent-Assessing authority was persuaded by the claim of the petitioner and allowed exemption on the turnover of Rs.19,66,145/- being the value of bitumen involved in the road laying works, as it constitutes deemed sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. However, the 2nd respondent exercising revisional power, had, after a due process, withdrawn the exemption granted by the 3rd respondent and levied tax at 8 per cent on the bitumen value of Rs.19,66,145/- by the order dated 20-9-2007. Aggrieved by this revisional order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A.No. 714 of 2008 and applied to the 1st respondent for grant of stay. Before the revisional authority, the petitioner does not appear to have produced the contract agreement between the petitioner and the PWD and Panchayat Raj Departments, on the basis and pursuant to which the petitioner had claimed that the bitumen was moved in the course of inter- State trade. This has resulted in the order of revision. As is apparent from the order impugned, the 1st respondent considered the application of the petitioner for stay and has recorded cogent reasons for declining exercise of discretion to grant stay. This Court is not constituted an appellate authority on the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent. As the order of the 1st respondent is not facially perverse, we find no reason to interfere with what is a rational exercise of discretion by the 1st respondent. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. None of the observations made in this order shall be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits of the petitioner’s substantive appeal pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No. 714 of 2008. The learned Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 1st February, 2010. GRR