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 : 21476 of 2008 Between: .....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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Madnamus declaring the impugned order dt 22-02-2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCTs Ref No.L- III(4)/94/2008 for assessment year 1998-99(APGST) as illegal unjustiﬁed and contrary to the provisions of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: SPL GP FOR TAXES The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the ﬁrst respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,42,988/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment year 1998-99, pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of various electronic goods and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent herein. The petitioner purchases the electronic goods from local registered dealers and claim exemption on the ground of second sales. The third respondent granted exemption in respect of the gods purchased from local registered dealers by order dated 23.6.2000. While so, the second respondent issued show cause notice dated 16.12.2002 proposing to revise the order dated 23.6.2000, to which the petitioner submitted reply. But, however, the second respondent passed an order dated 16.2.2004 revising the order and levying the tax as proposed. Aggrieved by the revised assessment order dated 16.2.2004, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also preferred an application before the ﬁrst respondent seeking to stay collection of the disputed tax pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected by the ﬁrst respondent by order impugned herein. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the ﬁrst respondent, the ﬁrst respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of the stay petition by the ﬁrst respondent, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised, 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 tax, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Tribunal. 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