IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND 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 : 20623 of 2008 Between: M/s.Vijimohan Constructions, 4-1-2/4 Eden Garden Road, Ramkoti Hyderabad-500001 Rep.by its Managing Director Mr.D.S Chandra Mohan Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Abdis Division Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner(CT) Abids Division Hyderabad 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 dt 11-7-2008 in proceedings CCTs Ref No.LV(1) 416/2008 as illegal arbitrary and unjustiﬁed and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs 8,20,609 for the assessment year 2002-03 (APGST) pending disposal of the appeal before the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in TA No.437 of 2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER(PER T HE HON’BLE SMT . JUST ICE T .MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 11.07.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.8,20,609/- for the year 2002-2003 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. G.S.T. Act and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in TA No. 437 of 2008, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. The petitioner is engaged in the execution of the works contract and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent. While so, for the Assessment year 2002-2003, the ﬁrst respondent ﬁnalized the assessment by order dated 23.3.2004 granting exemptions on purchases of bitumen from other States. However, the second respondent in exercise of revisional powers, has proposed revision withdrawing the e4xemption granted by the ﬁrst respondent, but, however, even after contest by the petitioner, the second respondent has confirmed the revision by order dated 11.3.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in TA No. 437 of 2008 and also preferred stay petition before the third respondent, which was dismissed by the order impugned in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. He further contends that if stay is not granted pending Appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioner will be put to serious hardship. In the fats and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the demanded tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of six weeks from today, pending finalisation of Appeal by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the amount, if any, paid by the petitioner, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum of 50%. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan September 22, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}