IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH 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 : 19224 of 2008 Between: M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited, S.D. Road, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Senior Finance Manager Mr.K.Subraya Naik. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, S.D. Road Circle, Secunderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Begumpet Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the stay application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax Rs.10,34,205/- through the impugned orders dated 01.08.2008 in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/537/2008 and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax pending appeal as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the Act and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.10,34,205/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs.11,28,223/- for the assessment year 2001-2002 under the CST Act pending appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case as otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19224 of 2008 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. The present writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the stay application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax Rs.10,34,205/- through the impugned orders dated 01.08.2008 and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax pending appeal as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the Act. It also sought for a consequential direction to set aside the aforementioned proceedings dated 1.8.2008 and to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.10,34,205/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs.11,28,223/- for the assessment year 2001-2002, pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, which is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, is a manufacturer of various electrical goods. It is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. While so, the ﬁrst respondent passed an assessment order on 22.3.2004 determining the net turnover of the petitioner at Rs.1,11,27,424/- duly granting exemption on transit sales of Rs. 94,01,859/-. The 2nd respondent, with a view to revise the said assessment order passed by the assessing authority, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon it to ﬁle its objections. By the proposed revision, the 2nd respondent wanted to withdraw the exemption granted by the assessing authority on the transit sales. On a consideration of the explanation ﬁled by the petitioner, through order 24.3.2008, the 2nd respondent conﬁrmed the proposed revision levying tax at 12% on the turnover of Rs. 94,01,859/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It also ﬁled an application seeking stay of recovery of the disputed demand before the 3rd respondent. But, the 3rd respondent, through the impugned order dated 1.8.2008, has 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the 3 rd respondent is not justiﬁed in rejecting the stay application. It is further contended that by virtue of the rejection of stay application, the 1st respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount. 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 Sales Tax Appellate 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: 6th September, 2008 __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Note: Furnish c.c. in three days B/o pnb