THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14064 of 2010 ORDER (per RR,J): Heard Sri S.Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. At their request the writ petition itself is disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner is a dealer in furniture and interiors, and an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. The second respondent conducted VAT Audit on the petitioner firm on 02.03.2010 which resulted in issuance of a VAT order on 30.03.2010, whereby the petitioner was required to pay Rs.5,56,224/- as tax. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent. Along with the appeal the petitioner also filed a petition seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.5,56,224/- pending disposal of the appeal. The third respondent, by his proceedings dated 25.05.2010, rejected the stay petition. A copy of the said order was served on the petitioner on 28.05.2010. The petitioner would contend that, for the same tax period, the second respondent also levied interest amounting to Rs.1,96,768/- by proceedings dated 30.03.2010. Against the said levy, the petitioner filed an appeal along with a stay petition, which was also rejected by the third respondent by proceedings dated 25.05.2010. The petitioner’s grievance is that, even before he could file a revision petition before the Joint Collector (CT) Legal, the second respondent issued notice dated 28.05.2010 calling upon them to pay the balance tax and interest, after deducting 12.5% of the tax paid by them. Apprehending action being taken for recovery of the said amount the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Several grounds are raised by Sri S.Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax levied by the assessing authority, and that the order of the third respondent rejecting the stay both with regards tax and interest is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. Since, however, a substantive appeal is pending before the third respondent, we consider it inappropriate to examine the contentions urged before this Court on merits. Suffice it to observe that, as a substantive appeal is pending before the third respondent, ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the tax, and the interest levied by the assessing authority, till the disposal of the appeal subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the tax due, and 1/3rd of the interest levied, within a period of four weeks from today. The amount, if any, paid already shall be given credit to. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 22.06.2010 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J va