IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18278 of 2008 Between: M/s. Parker Markwel Industries Private Limited, (formerly, Markwel Hose Industries Private Ltd) Patancheru - 502 319, Medak District, rep. by its Manager - Accounts Mr.B.S.B.Balaji. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Int., LTU Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, 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 2nd Respondent dated 12.6.2008 refusing to grant stay of collection of balance disputed tax of Rs.15,62,385/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the APGST Act pending disposal of the appeal as illegal, arbitrary, unjustiﬁed and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of balance disputed tax of Rs.15,62,385/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.17,85,583/- in pursuance of the notice dated 17.8.2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following order : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR *** WRIT PETITION No. 1 8 2 7 8 OF 2008. ORAL ORDER : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari }. Seeking a writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 15,62,385/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the APGST Act pending disposal of the appeal as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently to restrain the ﬁrst respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of disputed tax out of total disputed tax of Rs.17,85,583/- in pursuance of notice dated 17-8-2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent for the assessment year 2004-05 under APGST Act and to pass such other and further order or orders as this Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the APGST Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957, which is on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent. It is stated that the petitioner is engaged in business of manufacture and sale of hydraulic hose pipes. For the assessment year 2004-05 under APGST Act, the petitioner ﬁled its audit report as required under Rule 17 (5-A) of the APGST Rules, claiming that the sales of hydraulic hose pipes are parts of machinery and admitted its tax liability at 8% under item no.83 of First Schedule to the APGST Act. 3. The ﬁrst respondent having disagreed with the contention of the petitioner, levied tax at 12% under entry no.12 of VI schedule to the APGST Act. The order of the ﬁrst respondent is dated 31-3-2008. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent on 7-5-2008. It is stated that the petitioner paid Rs.2,23,198/- towards 12.5 % of the disputed tax for maintaining the appeal before the second respondent. For the balance disputed tax, the petitioner ﬁled stay application on 22-5-2009 seeking stay of collection of balance disputed tax of Rs.15,62,385/- by an order dated 10-8-2007. The order had been served on 19-8-2008 by the ﬁrst respondent along with notice dated 17-8-2008 demanding balance disputed tax within three days. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the respondent, the respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the ﬁrst respondent, the second respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 6. 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 the date of receipt of a copy of the order 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. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. _________________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR. J. 22-8-2008. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}