THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2116 of 2008 Date: 6th February, 2008 Between : M/s. Sree Uma Shakthi Medical and General Stores, Yemmiganur. …..Petitioner And The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool Division and another. …..Respondents. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2116 of 2008 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 11.12.2007 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 1,52,971/- for the period from January, 2006 to May, 2007 under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005, pending disposal of the appeal filed by him before the 1st respondent. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005. According to the petitioner their total turnover for the 12 months period is less than Rs. 40.00 lakhs and the 2nd respondent, without taking that fact into consideration has passed the assessment order dated 29.10.2007 levying tax at 4% amounting to Rs. 1,52,971/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Kurnool, the first respondent herein. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. But, the 1st respondent rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent is pending before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is not justified in rejecting the stay application. It is further contended that by virtue of the rejection of stay application, the 2nd respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. In the circumstances, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the 1st respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing half of the disputed tax amount within a period of six 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 disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 6th February, 2008 ______________ G. ROHINI, ,J Note: Communicate the operative portion by Wire at party’s costs. B/o pnb