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 : 21926 of 2008 Between: M/s.Fair View Constructions Private Limited, Tenali, Guntur District, rep.by its Authorised Representativ Panchakarla Balaji, S/o.P.Koteswara RAo aged 47 years, R/o.Vijayawada ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Morripspet circle T.B.road, Kothapet, Tenali, Guntur District .....RESPONDENT 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 any appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus and declare the action of the respondent in demanding payment of balance of disputed tax from the petitioner bending disposal of the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and grant the consequential relief by granting stay of collection of the balance of disputed tax from the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal,Visakhapatnam and issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon`ble court may be pleased to deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.DANTU.SRINIVAS 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 respondent in demanding to pay the tax pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, pending Appeal Second Appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the said Act and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax of Rs.2,86,772/- for the assessment year 2007-08, pending appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the execution of works contract and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the respondent. For the assessment year 2007-2008, the petitioner was assessed by order dated 29.2.2008 on a total turnover of Rs.90,84,550/- and levied a tax of Rs.5,73,544/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T) Guntur. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also ﬁled a petition seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax, which was, however, rejected by order dated 20.5.2008. Assailing the same, the petitioner ﬁled W. P. No. 13593 of 2008, which was disposed by order dated 27.6.2008 directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the disputed tax and in compliance of the same, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,15,079/-. On 30.6.2008, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. After dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority, since the respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance 50% of the disputed amount, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on an erroneous view, the petitioner apprehends that the respondent may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount. 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 balance tax amount, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the amounts said to have been paid by the petitioner, 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