IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21799 of 2008 Between: M/s. B. Ramesh Babu R/o. H.NO.13/51, Bethamcherla, Kurnool District, rep. by its Proprietor, B. Ramesh Babu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Office of the Commercial Tax Officer-III, Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writs or order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notice dated 18.09.2008 for the assessment year 1998-1999, directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1,37,472/- when pending appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and now stay application before the 1st respondent as arbitrary, contrary to law and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed demand of Rs.1,37,472/- for the assessment year 1998-1999 pending disposal of appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : \ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of the second respondent in issuing notice dated 18.09.2008 directing the petitioner to pay disputed tax of Rs.1,37,472/- pending appeal before the Sales Appellate Tribunal and stay petition before the ﬁrst respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment year 1998-1999 pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary concern and quarry lease holder at Bethamcherla, Kurnool district. The second respondent, had issued notice dated 10.11.2003 proposing to assess the petitioner for the year 1998-1999 to the eﬀect that the petitioner sold 39820.5 Sq. Mts. Tonnes of rough slabs to which, it paid royalty to the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Kurnool and has not registered as a dealer under the A.P.G.S.T. Act and did not pay tax due thereon. To the said notice, the petitioner submitted detailed reply, but, however, the second respondent by order dated 17.2.2005 has completed the assessment and levied the tax as proposed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool, who by order dated 24.7.2006 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in TA No. 989 of 2007. Pending appeal, when the second respondent had issued notice dated 25.9.2008 directing the petitioner to pay the disputed tax amount, the petitioner preferred stay application before the ﬁrst respondents and since no orders are passed, the petitioner apprehends that the same will be dismissed in a usual manner and coercive steps will be taken for recovery of the disputed tax amount. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that issuance of notice dated 18.9.2008 by the second respondent pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is bad and if stay is not granted, the respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, in which event, the very purpose of filing appeal itself, will be defeated. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to deposit half of the demanded tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan September 30, 2008 Copy in a week //BO// MAS