THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14913 of 2009 March 09, 2011 Between: M/s.Navayuga-IVRCL & SEW-JV, Hyderabad Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.M.Sreehari Rao … Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14913 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a joint venture (AOP) formed with three companies, namely, M/s.Navayuga–IVRCL & SEW Construction Limited. The petitioner is a registered VAT dealer on the rolls of the first respondent. They are filing returns with effect from 01.4.2005. For the tax period from April 2005 to 31.3.2006, the petitioner was assessed to tax as per Section 4(7)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the VAT Act), rejecting their objection that the contract works, transferred under the works contracts agreement and executed by a special contractor, are not liable to tax. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner went in appeal before the second respondent. Their application for stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.13,44,749/- was rejected aggrieved by which they preferred revision before the third respondent. By impugned order dated 12.5.2009 the revision was rejected. This writ petition is filed against the said order. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 11.8.2009, stayed collection of the disputed tax. Today when the matter is called, it is brought to our notice that the appeal is still pending, even though there is no stay with regards disposal of the appeal. Be that as it is, the Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that when the principal contractor has entered into the transaction for the transfer of the works, under works contracts agreements, the same does not attract VAT. This is a matter, which has to be adjudicated by the appellate authority as well as the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) subsequently. Therefore, though we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, we direct that, on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of ` 1,00,000/-, in addition to the amount already deposited while filing the appeal, within a period of three weeks from today, the order of stay granted by this Court earlier shall continue till the main appeal itself is disposed of by the third respondent. We also direct the third respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) March 09, 2011 YS