IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No: 20615 of 2009 Between: M/s Usha Shriram (India) 37, S.V. Reddy Complex, Tarbund Cross Roads Secunderabad-500 009, rep. by its Deputy Executive Director Mr. R.P.Malhotra … Petitioner And: The Commercial Tax Officer Marredpally Circle, Begumpet Division Ameerpet, Hyderabad & 2 others … Respondents ORAL ORDER:(Per GR,J) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09-07-2009 of the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, declining granting of interim stay of the liability for recovery of the tax of Rs.10,79,270/- for the assessment year 2001-02, pending the appeal in T.A.No.207 of 2009. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1st respondent engaged in the business of room coolers, water guards and cartridges. Mansarovar Trust is claimed to be the proprietor of the petitioner, it being a trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act and is claimed to be the proprietor of the petitioner and to have conferred right to use the brand name “Usha Sriram” and “Lexus” in respect of coolers by M/s Chinar Trust, New Delhi under an agreement entered into between M/s Chinar Trust and Mansarovar Trust. The 1st respondent by an order dated 02-11-2004 re-computed the turnover as submitted in the returns of the petitioner for the assessment year 2001-02 under the APGST Act, 1957 and therein adopted the consideration received by M/s Usha International Limited as a dealer in the hands of the petitioner for the levy of tax applying the provisions of Section 2(s) (iv) of the APGST Act, on the ground that the buyer is a related person. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal was allowed by the order dated 30-09-2005. However, the 3rd respondent exercising revisional power under Section 20 and by the order dated 12-02-2009 revised the appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent and brought the turnover to tax adopting the reasoning akin to the assessing authority. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent- revisional authority dated 12-02-2009, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the STAT and along therewith sought interim stay of the liability as determined by the order of the revisional authority dated 12-02-2009. By the order impugned herein, the STAT rejected grant of stay. Pending the several tiers of the proceedings before the appellate and the second appellate authorities, the petitioner states to have paid 50% of the tax as determined, an assertion, which is not disputed by Sri Krishna Koundinya, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. 5. As the issues substantively urged for our consideration are pending consideration in T.A.No.307 of 2009 before the STAT, Hyderabad Bench, we are not inclined to record a pronouncement on the merits of the substantive issues, as that might influence the appellate discretion. Suffice it to record that the petitioner has an eminently arguable case to be urged in the appeal. Since the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the tax liability as assessed by the revisional authority, interests of justice are served if the respondents are directed not to initiate coercive measures for recovery of the balance tax due pending determination of the appeal by the STAT in T.A.No.307 of 2007. The eventual liability of the petitioner would depend on the outcome of the decision of the STAT in T.A.No.307 of 2009. 6. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Koundinya the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J December 22nd 2009. Note: Issue CC in three days [BO] Lrkm/Bss.