IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24255 of 2008 Between: M/s. Jai Durga Timbers, a Proprietorship concern, having its Office at D.No.5-5-1041/1, Goshamahal, Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietor, Eshwar Patel S/o. Narayanlal Patel, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Aghapura Circle, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids Division, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an order direction of writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in demanding the petitioner company to pay the tax when appeal is pending on the ﬁle of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, ﬁled questioning the orders of the 3rd respondent revising sue motto while exercising powers under Section 20(2) of APGST Act, as well as stay petition pending on the ﬁle of the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, against the well settled principles of law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed tax amount of Rs.7,87,706/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 APGST till the disposal of the writ appeal in T.A.No.842 of 2008 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.ANANDAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the demand raised by the respondents to pay the tax pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal questioning the order of the third respondent passed in suo motu revision, pending stay petition before the ﬁrst respondent and consequently to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.7,87,706/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 pending Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary ﬁrm engaged in the business of timber and its products and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. The second respondent has completed the assessment by order dated 1.2.2005 for the year 2003-2004 raising a demand of Rs.4,51,534/- being concessional rate of tax under Sec. 5B of the Act. While so, the third respondent revised the assessment passed by the second respondent by his order dated 12.6.2008, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and raised a demand of Rs.12,39,241/-Aggrieved by the said revision, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in TA No. 842 of 2008 and also moved stay petition, before the ﬁrst respondent seeking stay of the collection of the disputed tax, which is still pending. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several attempts were made by the petitioner, the ﬁrst respondent did not grant stay of the collection of the disputed tax and since no stay is granted, the second 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 demand, 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. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan November 11, 2008 MAS