THE HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4491 of 2010 Between: M/s. South Central Railway Catering Unit, Vijayawada, Represented by its Divisional Commercial Manager, SCR Vijaywada, Krishna district. ..... PETITIONER And Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam Bench Visakhapatnam & 2-Ors. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Poluri Bhasker Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Balaji Varma, Spl. S.C. for C.T. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4491of 2010 ORAL ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari} Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the notice dated 28-10-2009 issued by the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the third respondent not to collect disputed tax of Rs.71,06,852/- from the petitioner pending disposal of the appeal before the first respondent, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. The South Central Railway Catering Unit, Vijayawada, represented by its Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway filed the present writ petition stating that the Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharampuram Circle, Vijayawada has assessed the tax for the assessment year 2004-05 under APGST Act and levied tax of Rs.71,06,852/- vide assessment order dated 14-3-2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent passed the order dated 27-9-2008. Questioning the order dated 27-9-2008 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and the appeal was duly registered as TA.No.34 of 2009 by the first respondent and the said appeal is posted for hearing on 27-2- 2009 and thereafter it is reserved for orders on hearing. It is further stated that the assessing authority acknowledged the payment of Rs.40,66,104/- disputed tax out of Rs.71,06,852/- total tax assessed vide assessment order dated 14-3-2008 in financial year 2004-05. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second and third respondents, but they refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of appeal by the second respondent, the third respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 5. 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, as per the impugned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order but however, the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. 6. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 21.4.2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in three days. B/o pnb