IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH 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 : 8502 OF 2010 Between: M/s. K.R.B. Transport, H-40, Annamaih Nagar, Bairagi Pattadi, Tirupathi, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner (CT)(Legal)(FAC) 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes Complex, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampaly, 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 30.03.2010 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.57,39,953/- for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and to consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps to collect the disputed tax pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a transport contractor and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent herein. The petitioner filed returns before the third respondent for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07, who issued notice dated 3.8.2007 proposing to levy tax of Rs.57,39,953/- basing on the information received from Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad. Though the petitioner objected to the same, the third respondent by order dated 23.4.2008 has confirmed the levy at Rs.57,39,953/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent who also dismissed the same without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner, by order dated 31.1.2009. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of appeal by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also moved stay petition before the first respondent, who summarily rejected the same, vide the order impugned in 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 stay by the first respondent, the third 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, 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 Appellate 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 Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 16, 2010 MAS