IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19292 of 2008 Between: M/s. Yograj Constructions, Koti, Hyderabad, Rep by its Manager, G. Ramesh Kumar,S/o. Late G. Satyanarayana ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Joint Commissioner (CT) and 2nd Floor, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Opp : Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Dy. Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, 5th Floor, Commercial Tax Complex, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Commercial Tax Officer, Abids Circle, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 26-8-2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Ref.No. LV(1)/612/2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently set aside the same and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19292 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per T HE HON’BLE MRS. JUST ICE T .MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the ﬁrst respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.13,937/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the AP Vat Act and consequently, to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2007-08, pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the third respondent erroneously viewed that the petitioner is liable to be registered under the APVAT Act, 2005 and has completed the assessment for the year 2007-2008 by proceedings, dated 05.03.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the second respondent along with a stay application seeking stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.13,937/-, pending appeal. The second respondent dismissed the stay application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled stay application before the ﬁrst respondent, which was summarily rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the ﬁrst respondent, the ﬁrst respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the ﬁrst respondent, the third respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 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, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight 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. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Dated:08.09.2008 GS/ASP