IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH 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 : 3008 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Sawaria Pipes Private Limited, 5-2-196/2/A, Distillery Road, Ranigunj, Secunderabad, Rep. By its Director Mr. Sujit Agarwal ..... PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay the collection of balance disputed tax of Rs.16,13,900/- from out of the total disputed tax of Rs.21,51,867/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and to consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment period from April, 2006 to March, 2007 pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaging in the business of manufacturing and sales of M.S. Pipes and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent herein under APVAT Act. The third respondent on verification of books of accounts and VAT 200 returns for the years 2005-06 to 2007-08, has issued VAT 305-A notice dated 15.01.2009 directing the petitioner to file objections. Though the petitioner filed objections and also after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent finalised the proceedings by order dated 20.06.2009 and levied the tax as proposed in the notice dated 15.01.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent along with a stay petition. However, the second respondent has rejected the stay by order dated 13.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection of the stay petition, the petitioner moved an application before the first respondent, which was also rejected by the order impugned herein. Consequent thereto, the third respondent has issued Urgent Notice dated 17.11.2009 directing the petitioner to pay the amount within three days. Hence, the present 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 had refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, the third respondent apart from issuing urgent notice dated 17.11.2009 for payment of the demanded tax, is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery thereof. 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, as per the impugned order 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 second respondent. 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 March 30, 2010 MAS