THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 18536 OF 2009 TUESDAY THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 Between:- M/S. Pooja Marbls, HIG, A-14, Gatchibowli, Hyderabad. ..Petitioner And Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, II-Floor, Commercial Taxes Complex, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 18536 OF 2009 Oral Order: (Per: RR, J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned g counsel for Commercial Taxes. The 1st respondent, by the impugned proceedings dated 09-07-2009, declined to grant stay and that is how this writ petition is instituted. The petitioner, a partnership firm executing civil works in the special economic zone, is registered on the rolls of the 4th respondent. It opted to pay tax by way of composition under Section 4 (7) (c) of the A.P. Vat Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). The 3rd respondent took up assessment for the period April, 2007 to February, 2008 and levied additional tax, over and above the admitted tax, plus interest of Rs.70,423-00. Thereupon the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. Thereagainst the petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The petitioner also filed an application before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. Before the 1st respondent, the petitioner urged that the turnover, assessable under Section 4 (7) (e) of the Act was the purchase value of the goods and not the value of its incorporation in the works contract. This contention was urged on an interpretation of the provisions of Section 4 (7)(e) of the Act. The 1st respondent however rejected this contention on the ground that the Supreme Court in Ganon Dunkerly & Co. v. State of Rajasthan1 had held that in works contract, the taxable event is the incorporation and it is the value of the incorporated goods that is assessable to tax at the appropriate rate legislatively determined. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and as the provisions of Section 4 (7)(e) of the Act do not expressly provide for the value of incorporation of the goods purchased or received from outside the State as the basis for computing the tax leviable, the petitioner is seen to have an arguable case in the appeal pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is stated to have deposited 50% of the disputed tax to the credit of the respondents. Interest of justice warrant that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner for collection of the balance tax, pending disposal of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, as the petitioner is already stated to have deposited 50% of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal there shall be stay of all further proceedings by way of collection of the disputed tax. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated: 15-09-2009 Pvks/*