IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21806 of 2008 Between: M/s.Sai Kiran Enterprises 3-4-531,Narayanguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Karta Raju Doiker ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad. 2 Commercial Tax officer, Gowliguda Circle, Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Narayanaguda Circle, Hyderabad. 4 Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Dilsukhnagar Branch, Musarambagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in demanding disputed sales tax of Rs./ 7.17.694/- for the assessment year 2007- 08 against which the appeal is pending before the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal of Andhra Pradesh ﬁled stay petition before the 1st respondent as illegal, and arbitrary and consequently grant stay of collection of disputed sales tax of Rs. 7,17,694/- pursuant to the assessment Order dt. 22-2-2008 passed by the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring action of the third respondent in demanding disputed sale tax of Rs.7,17,694/-, pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and Stay Petition before the ﬁrst respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.VA.T. Act and consequently to grant stay of collection of the disputed sales Tax pursuant to the assessment order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, carrying on business in waste papers and purchases from the hawkers and it is also a partner in Ms/. Goodluck Enterprises, a partnership ﬁrm and an assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Narayanguda Circle. The petitioner was audited on 18.7.2007 in the name of M/s. Sai Kiran Enterprises and by order dated 22.2.2008, the petitioner was assessed for the transactions relating to partnership ﬁrm M/s. Goodluck Enterprises raising a demand of Rs.14,35,388/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, who by order dated 16.9.2008, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, and also ﬁled stay petition before the ﬁrst respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. But since the third respondent has issued distraint notice dated 26.9.2008 under the R.R. Act, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the ﬁrst respondent, the ﬁrst respondent did not grant stay and, therefore, pursuant to the issuance of distraint notice dated 26.9.2008 by the third respondent, the petitioner apprehends that that respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to deposit half of the demanded tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance tax amount, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan September 30, 2008 Copy in a week //BO// MAS