THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.23985 of 2009 06-11-2009 BETWEEN; M/s.Surisetty Venkata Ramana rep. By its proprietor S.V.Ramana ...Petitioner vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam and two others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.23985 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1s respondent under the provisions of A.P.G.S.T.Act,1957 and the C.S. Act,1956 and engaged in execution of works contracts. For th assessment year 2004-05, the 1st respondent completed the assessmen and by the order dated 06-12-2005 under Section 5-F of the APGST Ac read with Rule 6(2) of APGST Rules, determined the net turnover o Rs.48,88,070/- on a gross turnover of Rs.2.66 Crores after applyin permissible deductions under the Rules, as per the assessing authorities discretion. The 2nd respondent revised the assessment by the order dated 30-01 2008 and disallowed certain items of expenditure related to the work executed by the petitioner and limited the deductions to an amount o Rs.1,53,92,391/- as against the deductions to an extent of Rs.2.17 Crore allowed by the assessing authority and determined the consequen balance of tax due at 8% in an amount of Rs.5,10,195/-. Eventually however, as apparent from the notice dated 03-11-2008 issued by the 1s respondent, the current balance tax liability of the petitioner eve according to the revision order is Rs.1,36,527/-. The petitioner is therefor seen to have paid around 70% of the tax determined as due under th order of the revisional authority dated 30-01-2008 i.e., in respect of the ta liability of Rs.5,10,195/-. Aggrieved by the revisional order, the petitioner has preferred a appeal to the STAT, Vizag Bench, which is pending. Since the STAT i denuded the power to grant interim relief, the petitioner approached the 3r respondent by way an application seeking stay of collection of th disputed quantum of tax as determined by the 2nd respondent. By th impugned order dated 08-08-2008, the 3rd respondent has declined gran of stay. As the substantive appeal of the petitioner against the revisiona order is pending before the STAT, we decline to pronounce on the merit of the petitioner’s contention as regards the validity of the revisional order In the considered view of this Court as the petitioner has an arguable cas in the appeal and the petitioner had already paid 70% of the ta determined as due by the revisional authority and is due a balance of onl Rs.1,36,527/-, as seen from the 1st respondent’s notice dated 03-11-2008 we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing th respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the amount o Rs.1,36,527/- pending disposal of the petitioner’s appeal by the STAT Vizag bench. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admissio after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes. N costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 6th NOVEMBER 2009. TSNR