THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22432 OF 2010 Dated:06.12.2010 Between: M/s. K.Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Private Limited, Mindspace cyberabad, Survey No.64 (Part), APIIC Software Layout, 1st Floor, Titus Towers, Building No.10, Madhapur, Hyderabad, rep., by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Ganesh Subuddi .. Petitioner And The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vat Management Unit-I, Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22432 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, is engaged in the business of selling and leasing of office space for IT/ITES Companies. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the respondents. Pursuant to an agreement entered into with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner company commenced establishment of an Infrastructure Park in the name of “Mindspace Cyberabad Project”. Thereafter, it entered into an agreement with the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation (APIIC), and a joint venture Company by name K.Rajeha IT Park (Hyderabad) Private Limited was incorporated to execute and implement the project. The first respondent conducted audit of the petitioner’s books invoking his powers under Rule 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). After putting the petitioner on notice, and giving them an opportunity of submitting their objections thereto, the order of assessment dated 10.09.2008 was passed holding that the petitioner was liable to pay tax under Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the second respondent and, since the second respondent rejected the said petition, they filed a revision to the third respondent who, by his order dated 03.03.2009, granted stay on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7858 of 2009 and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 18.04.2009, disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission granting stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited 50% of the disputed tax. The amounts paid by the petitioner was given credit to. Thereafter the second respondent, by his order dated 21.01.2010, rejected the appeal aggrieved by which the petitioner carried the matter in further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in T.A.No.499 of 2010, which appeal is said to be still pending as on date. They approached the Additional Commissioner seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax who, by his order dated 21.04.2010, rejected the stay petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it was wholly unnecessary for the petitioner to have preferred a revision to the Additional Commissioner in as much as Section 31(3)(C) of the Act stipulates that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, during the pendency of the first appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, shall continue even during the pendency of proceedings before the STAT. Learned counsel would draw attention of this Court to the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 03.03.2009 to submit that, while the balance disputed tax was Rs.86,04,472 and the amount paid during the pendency of the appeal was Rs.1,04,70,388/-, the Additional Commissioner had erroneously treated the amount paid during the pendency of the appeal as Rs.86,04,472 and the balance disputed tax as Rs.1,04,70,388/-. Learned counsel would submit that it is in view of this error in the order that the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.7858 of 2009. Learned counsel would further submit that, in any event, since the assessing authority had levied tax on immovable property such as generator sets, central air conditioning plants etc., the petitioner has an agruable case before the STAT and, as they have already paid more than 50% of the disputed tax, this Court should grant stay of the balance tax pending disposal of the appeal before the STAT. While these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be without merit, we do not propose to examine the contentions referred to hereinabove since a substantive appeal is pending adjudication before the STAT. Without going into the question as to what was the tax already paid by the petitioner, and what was the balance disputed tax payable, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax due, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 75% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from today. The amount, if any, already paid in this regard shall be given credit to. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 06.12.2010 KH