IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4945 of 2009 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : Order follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4945 of 2009 O R D E R : The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.17,52,025/- arising in pursuance of the assessment of value added tax in Form VAT 305, dated 18-10- 2008 passed by the second respondent in Case No.54/AC(VMU)- I/2008-09 for the assessment period 01-7-2006 to 31-03-2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the third respondent and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a VAT dealer and owner of certain commercial complexes meant for leasing to IT Companies with all facilities such as Air-conditioners, Diesel Generators, Furniture and Fixtures and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. The second respondent on an authorization issued by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, verified the books of accounts and connected records of the petitioner company and passed assessment of value added tax in Form VAT- 305, dated 18-10-2008 for the assessment period from 01-7- 2006 to 31-3-2008 and levied a tax of Rs.17,52,250/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent on 29-12-2008. The petitioner along with the memorandum of appeal in Form APP-400 also filed application for stay of collection of the disputed tax in Form APP-406 seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 15-1-2009, rejected the stay petition. Consequent on the same the first respondent issued garnishee notice in Form VAT-206, dated 27-1-2009 to the bankers of the petitioner company, the fourth respondent and also the fifth respondent, from whom money is due to the petitioner in Form VAT-206, dated 09-3- 2009 for the recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.7,82,080/-. Against the stay rejection order passed by the third respondent, the petitioner filed stay petition before the fourth respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. The said stay petition was heard by the fourth respondent on 03-2-2009 and was reserved for orders and the petitioner has not received any orders so far. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 4. 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 disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of four weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, 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. 5. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 13-3-2009. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }