IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NOS. 19165 AND 19194 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 19165 OF 2009 Between: M/s NCL Alltek & Seccolor Limited, Raghav Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane ..... petitioner AND The Commercial Tax Officer, and three others .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION NO. 19194 OF 2009 Between: M/s NCL Alltek & Seccolor Limited, Raghav Ratna Towers, Chirag Ali Lane ..... petitioner AND The Commercial Tax Officer, and three others .....RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: (per Sri Justice RAMESH RANGANATHAN) Parties in both the Writ Petitions are common. As the question that arises for consideration is also the same, both the Writ Petitions were heard together and are now disposed of by a common order. It would suffice for disposal of both the Writ Petitions, if the facts in Writ Petition No. 19165 of 2009 are taken note of. The petitioner, a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent, is engaged in manufacture of pre- painted steel sections. The first respondent, by his order of assessment dated 31.3.2008 for the assessment year 2004-05, levied tax at 12% on the first sales of pre-painted steel sections/profiles which were manufactured through roll formation of pre-painted steel sheets. The petitioner’s contention, that the commodity was taxable as iron and steel at 4%, was rejected by the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent along with a stay application. The second respondent, by order dated 18.8.2008, rejected the stay petition. Against that order, the petitioner filed a revision before the third respondent which was again rejected by order dated 14.10.2008. Questioning the order of the third respondent, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 23317 of 2008 and this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, granted stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent on condition of payment of 50% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks. The petitioner claims to have complied with the said order. The second respondent dismissed the appeal by order dated 21.5.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 3.8.2009. As the petitioner does not have any further remedy under the Act for stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of appeal by the S.T.A.T, they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In addition, the vires of Section 21 (6) of the APGST Act is also under challenge as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the incidental powers of the Tribunal, to grant stay pending disposal of the appeal, has been taken away. Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Entry No. 2 of the III Schedule of APGST Act, whereunder iron and steel is liable to be taxed at 4%. Entry No. 2 has several sub entries from (i) to (xv). Under sub-entry (v), steel structural (angles, joints, channels, tees, sheet piling sections, Z sections or any other rolled sections) fall under the ambit of iron and steel. Learned counsel would also drawn our attention to the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal wherein the petitioner herein had specifically contended that the rolls manufactured by them were pre-painted steel structures and required further processing to make it a finished product. The petitioner had contended that the pre-painted steel sections were manufactured through roll formation from pre-painted steel coils, the rolled sections so manufactured were cut into different lengths as per the requirement and also in the form of rolled sections and that they fell within the ambit of Entry 2 (v) of the Third Schedule under the head “steel structurals”. While the petitioner has an eminently arguable case on merits, we are not inclined to examine the contentions as the substantive appeal filed by them is pending adjudication before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. As the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondent not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeals by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. We make it clear that we have not examined the vires of section 21(6) of the APGST Act, as the petitioner has expressed his inclination to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on merits. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed, after hearing Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Balaji Varma, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the circumstances, without costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _________________​______ RAMESH RANGANATHAN , J DATE: 09.11.2009. KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies