IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13563 of 2008 Between: M/s. Berger Paints (India) Ltd., Sy. No. 133, Plassey Lanes, MBN Reddy Estate, Malla Reddy Gardens, Boinpally, Secunderabad, rep by its Administrative Officer Mr. G. Srinivasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)LTU, Charminar Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate deputy Commissioner(CT) Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 HDFC Bank Ltd. Lakidikapul, rep by its Branch Manager, .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissingthe stay application filed bythe petitioner through the impugned proceedigns dated 16-06-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and to set a side the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs. 17,31,142/- under the APVAT act in pursuance of the assessment orders 28-4-2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY 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 order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the second respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.17,31,142/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the VAT Act and consequently direct the respondent not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2005-06 to 2007-2008, pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Limited Company and a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent, has completed the assessment for the year 2005- 2006 to 2007-2008 28.04.2008, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the Second Respondent. Pending appeal, it is stated that garnishee notice was dated 24.6.2008 was issued. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent has issued garnishee notice and contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 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 due 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 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. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. Date:26-6-2008 __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Issue operative portion by wire //BO// asp