THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.1541 OF 2010 01-02-2010 BETWEEN; M/s.Carrier Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd., Hyderabad ...Petitioner vs. Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad and two others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.1541 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per RR,J) The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Assistan Commissioner (CT) LTU, Begumpet Division and is engaged in th business of sale and supply of air conditioners and execution of work contract of air-conditioning systems. For the assessment year 2004-0 they were assessed to tax by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd responden issued a revision show cause notice under Section 20(2) of th A.P.G.S.T.Act, 1957 treating the supply of air-conditioning systems as sal and not execution of works contract. As against the 8% tax paid by th petitioner, they were directed to pay tax at 16%. The revisional authorit treated the annual maintenance of air-conditioning system as an electrica contract under sub-entry (V) of entry (a) of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the APGS Rules and allowed deduction towards labour charges @ 25%. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Ta Appellate Tribunal in TA No.652 of 2009 which is stated to be pending a on date. They also filed a petition before the 1st responden seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of th appeal by the STAT. The 1st respondent, by his order dated 08-01-2010 rejected the stay petition holding that the transactions of supply installation, testing and commissioning of ductable split air conditioner were contracts of sale and not works contracts because the predominan element in such transactions was supply of goods and the labour involve in errection and commissioning of air conditioning systems was onl incidental. With regards determination of the taxable turnover on annua maintenance contracts, the 1st respondent distinguishes the order o Tribunal in M/s Sri Ram Refrigeration Industries Ltd., Vs. State of A.P. (3 APSTJ 113) and held that the said order of Tribunal related to repairing o compressors and not maintenance of air conditioning systems. Before us Sri J.V.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would subm that the petitioner had paid 16% tax on sale of window and split a conditioners on a turnover of Rs.13,62,63,424/-; the turnover relating t execution of works contract was Rs.6,24,93,623/-, it was evident from th invoices, filed both before the revisional authority and the 1st responden that these works were essentially in the nature of execution of work contract and not sale of air-conditioners; the petitioner was entitled to 30% deduction towards labour charges on the annual maintenance contracts o air-conditioners as it fell under “all other contracts” under Rule 6(3)(ii)( and not “electrical contracts” under Rule 6(3)(ii)(v). While the contentions urged before us by Sri J.V.Rao, the Learne counsel for the petitioner, cannot be said to be without merit, we do no propose to adjudicate thereupon since the substantive appeal is pendin before the STAT which is the final fact finding authority under the Act. W consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the respondents not to take an coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax on condition that th petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax with the 3rd respondent within period of four (4) weeks from today. The amount, if any, already pai towards the disputed tax shall be given credit to. In case the petitione does not comply with this order within the time stipulated hereinabove th order passed by us shall stand automatically vacated and the respondent would be at liberty to recover the disputed tax in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admission. N order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 1st FEBRUARY 2010. TSNR