THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGHANATHAN. Dated this the 15th day of October 2009. Writ Petition No. 19909 of 2009. Between: M/s Escots Construction Equipment Ltd., Secunderabad. ……Petitioner vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU), Saroornagar Divisiona, Hyderabad and two others. ……Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19909 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, is engaged in the purchase and sale of antiseptic cream, prickly heat powder, baby massage oil, navaratan oil etc. These products are manufactured by the petitioner on a drug license issued to them under Section 33 (EEB) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Assessing Authority passed an order of assessment on 06.06.2009 levying tax on ayurvedic baby massage oil and navaratan oil at 12.5% under Schedule-V of the Act, and raised an additional demand of Rs.50,88,578/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner which is said to be pending as on date. The application filed by the petitioner, seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal, was dismissed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.07.2009, against which the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner who, by order dated 19.08.2009, dismissed the revision. The order dated 19.08.2009 of the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) is under challenge in the present writ petition. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that ayurvedic baby massage oil and navaratan are drugs, but are not cosmetics, and as such are liable to tax only at 4% and not at 12.5%. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the very same issue is the subject matter of the TRCs pending on the file of this Court and that this Court, in the connected writ petitions, had granted interim stay of collection of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the TRCs, subject to payment of 50% of the disputed tax. The petitioner has an arguable case on merits. We must, however, refrain from examining the contentions on merits as the appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the assessment order, is pending before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Ends of justice would be met if, pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax within four weeks from today. There shall be an order accordingly. Amount, if any, already paid towards the disputed tax shall be given credit to. The writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Balaji Varma, learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 15.10.2009 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J krb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGHANATHAN. Writ Petition No. 19909 of 2009. Dated: 15.10.2009.