THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2107 of 2008 Date: 6th February, 2008 Between : M/s. P. Chandramouli Reddy, Bethamcherla, Kurnool District. …..Petitioner And The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Andhra Pradesh and others. …..Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2107 of 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 4.12.2007 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 1,54,080/- for the assessment year 2000-2001 APGST, pending disposal of the appeal filed by him before the 1st respondent. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the A.P.General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the rolls of the third respondent. Apart from that the petitioner was also having mining lease of Napa slabs. According to the petitioner when he filed returns under the APGST Act, 1957 before the third respondent and paid the tax thereon, basing on which, the third respondent seemed to have passed an assessment order on 15.2.2002. While so, the 2nd respondent vide his order dated 3.11.2005 had revised the assessment order on the ground that the petitioner obtained transit forms from the Mines and Geology Department for 1,16,897.5 Sq. Metres or 8,409.5 Metric Tonnes of Napa during the year and estimated the value by multiplying the quantity with Rs. 300/- Metric Tonne, without any basis and accordingly, determined that the petitioner suppressed turnover to an extent of Rs. 19,26,070/- and levied tax thereon amounting to Rs. 1,54,080-00. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. But, the 1st respondent rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent is pending before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is not justified in rejecting the stay application. It is further contended that by virtue of the rejection of stay application, the 2nd respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. In the circumstances, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the disputed tax amount within a period of six weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 6th February, 2008 ______________ G. ROHINI, ,J Note: Communicate the operative portion by Wire at party’s costs. B/o pnb