IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10895 OF 2008 Between: M/s. Vamsadhara Paper Mills Ltd Madapam Srikakulam Dist Rep.by its General Manager Sri T.V.Bhaskara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commmissioner (CT) LTU Vizianagaram 2 The Deputy Commissioner(CT) Vizianagaram 3 The Joint Commissioner(CT) Legal 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 Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 3rd respondent in C.CT s Ref No.LV(3) 77/08 dt.22-4-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs 5,41,924/- for the assessment year 2000-01 (CST) pending disposal of the appeal before the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10895 OF 2008 ORDER : (PER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN) Aggrieved by the order of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), dated 22.04.2008, rejecting the stay application the present writ petition is filed. The appeals filed against the orders in revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner revising the order of assessment, are still pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In his order, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), observes that the revisional authority had permitted the appellant to avail a deferment of Rs.4,21,98,300/- on expansion under G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20.05.1996, that the ownership of the goods is terminated only at the destination, that the risk in transit lay with the industry only and, in case of any claim raised in the transit risk, the Insurance Company had to pay the amount to the industry only. Taking note of the findings of the revisional authority, the Joint Commissioner did not find any valid grounds not to reject the stay application. As noted above, against the orders in revision, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the matter is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. If, at this stage, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire amount, the appeal before the Tribunal would be rendered an empty formality. Ends of justice would be met if, while staying all further proceedings for recovery of taxes due pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six weeks from today. Amount, if any, paid already, shall be given credit to. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21st May 2008. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Ajr/asp To 1 The Assistant Commmissioner (CT) LTU Vizianagaram 2 The Deputy Commissioner(CT) Vizianagaram 3 The Joint Commissioner(CT) Legal Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad