IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8685 of 2009 Between: M/s. Galaxy Auto Axle Private Limited, 56-10/13A Plot No.77, P & T Colony III, High School Road, Near Autonagar, Patamata, Vijayawada, represented by its Manager & Authorized Representative K.Srinivasa Rao S/o. K.Gandhi R/o. Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Int.) LTU, No.II Division, Vijayawada, D.No. 74-15-1, Yenamalakuduru Road, Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada. 3 Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Certiorari and call for the records on the file of the third respondent in his proceedings, CCT's Ref.No.LV(2)/146/2009, dated 17.03.2009 and quash the same and grant the consequential relief by granting stay of collection of the balance of the disputed tax of Rs.10,33,675/- from the petitioner pending disposal of Appeal No. VJA-II/90/2008-2009 by the second respondent herein and issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.DANTU.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, J) Rule. With the consent of both Sri D. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, the writ petition itself has been taken up for hearing at the stage of admission and is now being disposed of by this order. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal dated 17-03-2009 rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay pending appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), (the 2nd respondent herein), the present writ petition is filed. The dispute in this writ petition is whether ‘Axles’ would fall within Entry 70 (13) of Schedule IV in which case tax can only be levied at 4% or whether it should be levied at 12.5% under Schedule VI. Even under Section 14 (IV)(XIV) of the Central Sales Tax Act, ‘Axles’ are declared goods and are liable to be taxed only at 4%. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the word used in Entry 70(13) of Schedule IV is ‘Axies’ and not ‘Axles’. Prima facie, this seems to be a typographical mistake as the word “Axies” defies meaning. However, since an appeal is said to be pending before the 2nd respondent, we do not intend to finally adjudicate this question. Suffice it to observe that, prima facie, the contention urged by Sri D. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, as aforesaid, has considerable force. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th April, 2009. ks