IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5047 of 2009 Between: M/s. Artery Constructions, No. 16-8-240/A/C, New Malakpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Partner , Mohd. Najmuddin S/o. Sri Mohd. Nazeeruddin. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally Station Road, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Malakpet Circle, Gagan Vihar, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No.L-III(2)/41/2009 for assessment year 2003-2004 (APGST) as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : MR.A.V.KRISHNA KAUNDINYA (SPL.SC FOR CT) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5047 OF 2009 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. Challenging the order of rejection of stay, dated 13.2.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of execution of works contracts. It is an assessee on the rolls of the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, during the assessment year 2003-04, it executed works contract for laying the roads. For the purpose of executing the said work, it purchased bitumen from other States. The 3rd respondent, after perusing the books of accounts and the statutory audit report submitted by the petitioner, passed an order on 31.3.2007 disallowing exemption claimed by the petitioner in respect of the inter state purchases of bitumen. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent together with a stay application. The 2nd respondent through order dated 24.12.2008, dismissed the said appeal. Feeling aggrieved, it again filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It also filed an application for stay before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. However, when the 1st respondent rejected the stay petition filed by it, on an earlier occasion, it filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court granted stay on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax and on condition of the petitioner paying the balance 50% within the prescribed time. Subsequently, it appears, the 1st respondent passed an order on 13.2.2009 rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner for stay of collection of the disputed tax. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the assessing authority is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the 1st respondent has rejected the stay application. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal, subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 13th March, 2009 _________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Note: Furnish c.c. in 3 days. B/o pnb