THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NOs.13207 AND 13217 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Dr. S.R.R.Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax. At their request, both the Writ Petitions are being taken up together for disposal at the stage of admission. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for stay, by his order dated 29.09.2009, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner is a civil contractor executing works for the PWD and Panchayat Raj departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is his case that the Government of A.P. required him to purchase bitumen directly from a refinery, and that the bitumen so purchased had to be transported directly to the work site. He would assert that he had purchased bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation Refinery, Chennai. The petitioner was finally assessed to tax for the years 2003- 2004 by the third respondent and was levied tax on the net turnover so determined. The second respondent, alleging that the third respondent had adopted an incorrect procedure in making the assessment even though the petitioner had not maintained regular books of accounts, as required under Rule 45 (1-C) of the APGST Rules, sought to revise the said assessment order. The petitioner was asked to show cause why the order of the third respondent should not be revised, and to pay tax restricting the exemption granted earlier by the third respondent. The petitioner claims to have submitted a reply thereto on 30.07.2007 contending that he was maintaining books of accounts for each of the works executed, and that the expenditure incurred was clearly ascertainable from the books of accounts. The second respondent, however, revised the said order of the third respondent by his order dated 25.09.2007, and the said order was given effect to from 27.10.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hydeabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity} and the said appeal was registered as T.A.No.671 of 2008. The petitioner filed a stay petition before the first respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. The first respondent, by his order dated 29.09.2009, rejected the stay petition holding that the use of goods in the works executed in the State of Andhra Pradesh, after purchasing them from other States,was purely a local sale and not an inter-State sale. Dr. S.R.R.Viswanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would challenge the said order on several grounds. This Court is, however, not inclined to examine these contentions as the substantive appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending before the Tribunal. Interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the disputed tax, after giving credit to the amount already paid, within a period of four {4} weeks from today. On payment of the said amount, as aforementioned, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance tax till the appeal is disposed of by the Tribunal. Both the Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 14th June 2010 Note: CC by one week B/O RRB