THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19698 of 2009 Date: 22.10.2009 Between: Agarwal Industries Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. … Petitioner. And Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19698 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Apprehending that the 3rd respondent would initiate coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax and interest in an amount of Rs.24,59,273/- for the tax period April 2006 to March, 2008, even during the pendency of an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, is the writ petition filed seeking appropriate relief. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 on the rolls of the 3rd respondent engaged in the manufacture and sale of refined vegetable oils and vanaspati. As part of the business it imports crude palm oil from foreign countries requiring payment of customs duty. The petitioner purchased duty entitlement pass book (DEPB) for utilizing in lieu of customs duty payable in cash. In respect of some of the exports, the petitioner paid customs duty in cash and for part of the imports utilized the DEPB and claimed input tax credit to the extent of purchases made utilizing DEPB. The 1st respondent by the order of assessment dated 22.11.2008 determined the tax due from the petitioner at Rs.20,76,106/- and imposed an interest liability of Rs.3,83,167/-. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred appeals to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, both as against the tax and interest components as assessed, claiming that the order of assessment applying Rule 20(6) of the A.P. VAT Rules 2005 was irregular. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.7.2009 dismissed the appeals. The petitioner had moved stay applications while the appeals were pending. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner had rejected the petitioner’s application for stay. Thereagainst the petitioner preferred an application to the 2nd respondent who also rejected the application for stay by an order dated 6.3.2009. The petitioner moved this court by way of W.P. No.6583 of 2009 seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax while challenging Rule 59 of A.P. Vat Rules contending that the said Rule is ultra vires Section 2(4) of the Act. The petitioner did not pursue the challenge to the vires of Rule 59 and the writ petition was disposed of by order of this Court dated 30.3.2009 granting stay of collection of the disputed tax subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax before the Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner deposited 50% as per the conditional order of stay granted by this Court. The petitioner has now preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) on 5.8.2009 and applied to the 2nd respondent for grant of stay of collection of the disputed tax and the interest component thereon. The 2nd respondent by order dated 26.8.2009 rejected the petitioner’s application for grant of stay. Contending that it has an eminently arguable case in the appeal pending before the STAT, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Though the petitioner had pleaded that in view of provisions of Section 31(3)(c) of the Act, the stay granted by this Court on 30.3.2009 in W.P.No.6583 of 2009 operates to far the collection of the tax, as though it were an order passed by the authority under the Act pending disposal of the appeal before the STAT, Sri S.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner does not pursue this contention in oral argument, but confines the plea to stating that as the petitioner has an eminently arguable case in the appeal before the STAT, it would be inequitable that if coercive steps were permitted to be taken by the respondents for collection of the entire disputed tax pending the appeal. Heaving heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs within four weeks to the 1st respondent and directing the respondents not to take coercive steps to recover the balance of the disputed tax, pending the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the STAT, Hyderabad. This order is passed in the context that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the disputed tax pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.3.2009 in W.P. No.6583 of 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 22.10.2009 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR/ASP