IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10424 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Pinnamaneni Veeraiah & Co. Rep. By its Managing Partner Sri P.Veeraiah, Chowdari Chowdari Manikonda Road, Gudiwada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Deputy Commissioner (CT), No.1 Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the second respondent and the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in proceeding to collect the disputed tax of Rs.60,90,784/- under AP VAT Act as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for the collection of the said tax for the assessment period from April, 2005 to October, 2009 pending Appeal before the fourth respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in doing rice business having its own rice mill and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent herein. On authorisation from the first respondent, the second respondent conducted audits and submitted a reports to the Assistant Commissioner on 20.2.2006, 27.9.2007 and 16.10.2008 and by an order dated 26.2.2010, levied tax of Rs.60,90,784/- aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent paying 12.5% of the demanded tax. It is also stated that pending appeal, the first respondent is proposing to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has bright chances of success in the appeal pending before the fourth respondent, but pursuant to the order dated 26.2.2010, levying the disputed tax, if the first respondent who is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, collects the same, the very purpose of filing the appeal will be defeated. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 disputed tax amount within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, 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 Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 30, 2010 MAS