THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION Nos. 16068 and 16093 of 2009 Between: M/s S.R. Communication Systems, rep. by its Managing Partner Mr. V.Venkat Ram …Petitioner and The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Common Order: (Per GR, J) These two writ petitions involve common issues and are thus considered and disposed of by this common order. The facts in W.P.No. 16068 of 2009 are recorded as representative of the issues arising in the writ petitions. W.P.No.16068 of 2009: The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the APGST Act, 1957 (for short ‘the 1957 Act’) and the CST Act, 1956 (for short ‘the 1956 Act’), carrying on business in electronic timers. It entered into an agreement with the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the Singareni Collieries for supply and installation of timers for lighting purpose. The 1st respondent completed the assessment for the assessment year 2000-01 on 31-5-2001 and levied tax at 4% treating the turnover as the first sale of electronic timers. While so, the 2nd respondent revised the assessment order, by the order dated 25-3-2004, treating the transaction as works contract by relying on the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer who inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 23-5-2003. The 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that there was a suppression of turnover regarding sales of electronic timers, on the basis of information procured from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Eventually the 2nd respondent while granting exemption on 25% of the receipts towards labour component as a standard deduction on the entire receipt of Rs.1,84,09,667-00 treating it as an electrical works contract, assessed the net turnover at 8% under Section 5-F of the 1957 Act. The petitioner paid the tax pursuant to the order dated 25-3-2004. The 2nd respondent passed a penalty order dated 25-3-2004 determining the penalty at 5 times the tax levied, invoking the power under Section 14(8) of the 1957 Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Rural Division, the 3rd respondent and asserted therein that the penalty order was passed without considering the objections dated 30-6-2004 lodged to the penalty proposals. The 3rd respondent, by the order dated 28-4-2007, allowed this appeal partly i.e., to the extent of reducing the quantum of penalty to 3 times the tax component. Consequent on the 3rd respondent’s appellate order dated 28-4-2007, the 2nd respondent passed a revised order of penalty dated 27-6-2007 determining the penalty at Rs.31,81,102- 00. Thereagainst the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No. 886 of 2007. This appeal is pending. Section 21 (6A) of the 1957 Act, in terms, disentitles grant of interim relief by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of sub-section (6A) of Section 21 of the 1957 Act. By an order dated 10-8-2009, this Court granted interim stay of collection of the disputed penalty subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 1/4th of the disputed penalty within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. It is represented by Sri S.Dwarakanath, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has complied with the condition and within the period specified by the order of this Court dated 10-8-2009. At the hearing of these writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners do not wish to pursue the challenge to the vires of Section 21(6A) of the 1957 Act and would pursue the appeals preferred against the penalty orders in the substantive appeals pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the petitioner had already deposited 25% of the penalty determined, which is the subject matter of the appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, this Court considers it appropriate in the interest of justice, to direct the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the balance penalty due pending the outcome of the substantive appeals preferred by the petitioner against the order of penalty, by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The writ petitions are disposed of as above, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.Dwarakanath and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, the learned special standing counsel for Commercial Taxes. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ____________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th December, 2009. GRR