HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 21871 OF 2009 DATED 13TH OCTOBER, 2009. BETWEEN M/S. Deccan Industrial Products (P) Limited, Hyderabad, rep. By its Director ....Petitioner and The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-1 and others. ...Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21871 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Benz Circle, Vijayawada. It is engaged in the business of automobile spares like tractor spares, bearings, bolts & nuts, axles etc., The petitioner paid tax at 4%, under Entry 70(xiii) of Schedule IV of AP VAT Act 2005, on the sale of axles and other goods. The second respondent issued show cause notice proposing tax at 12.5%, on a turnover of Rs.1,59,93,106/- relating to the sale of axles, under the residuary entry of the Fifth Schedule. The petitioner disputed the said levy of tax contending that wheels, tyres, axles etc are declared goods under Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The second respondent, however, relying on a ruling given by the first respondent in Ref. No.A.R.Com/49/2007 dated 27.05.2008, held that the petitioner was liable for tax at 12.5%. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent and the appeal is said to be pending as on date. As the stay petition preferred before the first respondent was rejected, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.18910 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated 18.09.2009, stayed recovery of the balance disputed tax till disposal of the appeal by the third respondent. The petitioner also challenged the advance ruling, in Ref. No.A.R.Com/49/2007 dated 27.05.2008, by way of a review petition which is also said to be pending. The jurisdiction of the advance ruling authority to pass the order dated 27.05.2008 is questioned in this Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that, since the goods in question are “declared goods” under the Central Sales Tax Act, they are required to be taxed only at 4% under entry 70(xiii) of Schedule IV of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 and not at 12.5% under the provisions of the V Schedule. The petitioner has an arguable case on merits. As, however, the review petition preferred by them is pending before the first respondent, we consider it inappropriate to examine these contentions in the present Writ Petition. As the order of the first respondent is binding on the third respondent, under Section 67 of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, suffice to direct that, pending disposal of the review petition by the first respondent, there shall be stay of all further proceedings including disposal of the appeal pending before the third respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13-10-2009 Note : C.C. in three days. B/o Msnr.