IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH 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 : 20831 of 2008 Between: M/s. Anandi Art Creations Private Limited, Nagarjuna Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. Rep. byits Director Mr. P. Kiran, S/o. P. Gopal Rao, Aged about 47 Years,R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Jubille Hills Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Commercial Tax Officer, Srinagar Colony Circle, Hyderabad. 3 Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in demanding disputed sales tax of Rs. 1,20,000/- against which the appeal is pending under the Act, and the stay petition ﬁled before the 3rd Respondent is illegal and contrary to law and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed sales tax of Rs. 1,20,000/- for the assessment year 2001-02 under the Act pursuant to the assessment orders passed by the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL 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 order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,20,000/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2001-2002, pending appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a company engaged in ﬁlm producing, taking services of various artists, technicians and since the services are not liable to sales tax, the company did not seek registration with the respondents. While so, the oﬃcials of the Vigilance and Enforcement wing, visited the petitioner’s premises on 30.4.2004 and observing that the petitioner is selling copy rights to various music companies, the second respondent passed provisional assessment order dated 22.1.2005 levying tax on a turnover of Rs.15.00 lakhs. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not pay 12.5% of the disputed tax amount. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is pending. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has paid 12.5% of the demanded amount, the ﬁrst respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount and if stay is not granted, the petitioner will be put to serious hardship. 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. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan September 24, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}