IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5043 of 2009 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : Order follows 2nd page THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY *** WRIT PETITION No. 5 0 4 3 OF 2009. O R D E R : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari }. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the impugned order dated 13-2-2009 passed in CCT’s Ref.No.1.III(2)/40/2009 for the assessment year 2003-2004 (APGST) as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of execution of works contract and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent. During the assessment year 2003- 04, the petitioner executed works contract of laying the roads. For the purpose of executing the works contract of laying the roads, the petitioner purchased bitumen from other state. 3. It is stated that the third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03-10-2005 proposing to disallow the exemption claimed by the petitioner on the purchases of bitumen effected from other states as according to the third respondent, the transaction of purchase and supply of bitumen for use in the works contract in the State of Andhra Pradesh, constitute a local/deemed sales within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Though the petitioner submitted a detailed reply stating that the purchase and supply of bitumen from other state for use in execution of works contract, constitute an interstate sale, the third respondent rejected the submission made by the petitioner and passed an order dated 31-3-2007 confirming the show cause notice. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 31-3-2007 passed by the third respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal along with the stay petition before the second respondent on 12-6-2007. However, the second respondent by his order dated 24-12-2008 dismissed the appeal. Against the order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. As the Tribunal has no power to grant stay, the petitioner preferred stay petition before the first respondent seeking stay of collection of tax pending disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal as well as in the stay petition filed before the first respondent, the petitioner contended that the interstate3 transaction cannot be subjected to tax under the provisions of APGST Act and therefore, the order passed by the second respondent confirming the order passed by the third respondent is illegal and unjustified. However, the first respondent without appreciating the submissions made by the petitioner, passed an order dated 13-2-2008 in CCT’s Ref.No.LIII(2)/40/2009, rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner for stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal by the second respondent. As against the impugned order dated 13-2- 2009 passed by the first respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 6. 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 today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the 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. 7. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 13-3-2009. I s L N B : Furnish CC in two days. B/o. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }