IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 981 of 2010 Between: M/s. Preetham Engerprises, 3/168-1, Beside Ape Auto, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa, Rep.by its Managing Partner Y.Sivarama Raju ..... PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Andhra Pradesh, II Floor, C.T. Building, Op: Gandhi Bhavan, M.J. road, Nampally, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,63,065/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-2005 pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm dealing in the printing of computer stationery, etc., and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent herein. The third respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2004-2005 under APGST and CST Acts by order dated 31.7.2006 and 15.6.2006 respectively, which was however, revised by the second respondent in exercise of revisional powers under Sec. 20(2) of the APGST Act revising the assessment under APGST Act and accordingly passed an order dated 26.3.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and also moved stay petition before the first respondent, which was summarily rejected by the first respondent, vide the order impugned in the 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 the petitioner firm had already paid 25% of the disputed tax for maintaining the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. This court by order dated 11.2.2010 granted interim stay as prayed for specified period. In view of the fact that the petitioner company had already paid 25% of the disputed tax, without adverting to the merits or otherwise of the contentions raised by the petitioner, the interim stay granted by this court on 11.2.2010 is made absolute and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax as per the impugned order, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admisison. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 22, 2010 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs //BO// MAS