IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10673 OF 2010 Between: K.V.Ramaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharampuram Circle Vijayawada and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by the second respondent refusing to stay the collection of the disputed tax of Rs.1,75,186/- as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for the collection of the disputed tax for the assessment period from 2005-2006 to 2009-10 (Upto July, 2009) pending Appeal No. VJA-II/103/2009-10 before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a civil contractor executing works contracts and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. He filed monthly returns for the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2009-10, duly paying the taxes which were accepted by the first respondent, but on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, the first respondent and other officials, after verifying the books of accounts, have levied value added tax to the tune of Rs.2,00,212/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent along with a stay petition and paid tax at 12.5%. The stay petition was rejected by the second respondent through the order dated 9.4.2010, without considering the request of the petitioner for an adjournment. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent while brushing aside the same, has rejected to stay the collection of the disputed tax. It is further stated that pending appeal before the second respondent, the first respondent is 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 disputed tax amount within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed 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. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 30, 2010 MAS