IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13419 of 2008 Between: M/s. Watsol Organics Ltd, Plot No.32-8-3-1010, 6th Floor, Vijaya Enclave Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad 500073 Rep.by its Chief Finance Officer Mr.V.S Soma ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commericial Tax Officer Gandhinagar Circle Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Secunderabad Division Hyderabad 3 The Joint Commissioner(CT), Legal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad .....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 a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or directing quashing the order of the 3rd Respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LV(I) /1019/2007 dt.22-4-2008 in refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs 11,27,380/-pending disposal of the appeal of before the 2nd respondent for the tax period April 2005 to March 2007 under the APVAT act as illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs 11,27,380/- for the tax period April 2005 to March 2007 and the APVACT act pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 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 22.4.2008 passed by the third respondent reusing to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.11,27,380/-, pending appeal before the second respondent, for the period from April, 2005 to March, 2007, under VAT Act as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and consequently to restrain the first respondent from taking coercive steps for the collection of the disputed tax pending appeal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of bulk drugs and a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under A.P.V.A.T. Act. The first respondent, by show cause notice dated 17.08.2007 proposed to disallow deferment of tax, claimed by the petitioner in terms of certificate dated 16.3.2004 for the period from April, 2005 to March, 2007, to which the petitioner submitted reply. But the first respondent, by order dated 13.09.2007, has confirmed the proposal of levying tax and raised a demand for Rs.11.27,380/-, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the second respondent along with an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. But the second respondent by order dated 20.11.2007 refused to grant stay. Therefore, the petitioner preferred revision before the third respondent, who also refused to grant stay by the 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 third respondent, the third respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the third 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 due 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 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. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. JUNE 26, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}