IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 26161 OF 2009 Between: M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited. ..... Petitioner AND The Assistant Commissioenr (CT) VM-I and two others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (per Sri Justice GODA RAGHURAM) The Third respondent by the impugned order dated 4.11.2009 declined to grant stay and that is why the petitioner is before this Court. Petitioner is a limited Company in the business of manufacture and sale of Cement and a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, S.D. Road Circle, Secunderabad, under the provisions of AP VAT Act, 2005. For the tax period May 2007 to May 2008, the petitioner filed its monthly returns, paid the applicable taxes and claimed input tax credit on the goods purchased from local registered VAT dealers which were used in the business. The first respondent conducted audit and issued a notice dated 21.7.2008 proposing to restrict the input tax credit on certain goods purchased locally from registered VAT dealers and used in the business. The first respondent proposed to restrict the input tax credit to Rs. 2,50,86,136/- as against Rs.3,10,55,795/- claimed by the petitioner in the monthly returns for the month of May, 2008. After considering the objections and the material produced by the petitioner, the first respondent restricted the input tax credit to Rs. 2,50,86,136/- as proposed. Petitioner paid tax due on the basis of this determination of the first respondent. The second respondent exercising powers under the AP VAT Act, 2005 proposed to revise the order of the first respondent on the ground that it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued show cause notice dated 9.4.2009. The second respondent after hearing the objections of the petitioner to the proposals, restricted the input tax credit to Rs. 17,62,522/-, by the orders dated 27.7.2009. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and moved the third respondent for stay of the disputed tax liability consequent on the second respondent. The third respondent has rejected the application for stay. The dispute as to the benefit of input tax credit claim is in respect of goods like bolts, nuts, consumables, accessories and other stores and spares etc. The third respondent declined to grant stay on the ground that these goods are useful in office and factory buildings only and not as inputs to the business of the petitioner. It is possible that part of these goods viz., electrical goods, hardware, furniture and steel etc., also constitute components of the business of the petitioner and not only towards the construction of office and factory. In any event, the substantive appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we are not inclined to record any observations on the merits of the case of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met by directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, as determined by the revisional order of the second respondent dated 27.7.2009 on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax as determined by the order of the second respondent dated 27.7.2009 to the credit of the Commercial Tax Officer, S.D. Road Circle, Secunderabad, within a period of four weeks from today, after taking credit for amounts already paid. In default of such deposit and within the time stipulated herein, petitioner would be liable to pay the entire amount. The respondents are also entitled to collect the entire amount by due process of law. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhaskara Reddy Vemireddy and also the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, Sri A.V.Krishna Kowdinya. Pending disposal of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal preferred by the petition, the order of the second respondent dated 27.7.2009 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _________________​______ RAMESH RANGANATHAN , J DATE: 2.12.2009. KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies