THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16350 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent, in his proceedings dated 15.06.2000 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner, seeking stay of collection of balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, was rejected, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner, a manufacturer and trader of non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages, was assessed to tax by the 3rd respondent who, by his order dated 31.03.2010, determined the petitioner’s tax liability at Rs.82.48 lakhs holding that there was a transfer of the Trademark when the tranferee uses the Trademark in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. They also filed an application seeking stay of recovery of the balance tax pending disposal of the appeal. The 2nd respondent, by his order dated 21.05.2010, dismissed the stay application. Aggrieved thereby, a revision petition was filed before the 1st respondent resulting in the impugned order dated 15.06.2010 being passed. Sri S.R. Ashok, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the contract in question, which is alleged to involve the transfer of the right to use the Trademark, was entered into at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra and, as has been held by the Supreme Court in 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra[1], the taxable event occurs at the place where the agreement is entered into. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that, since the agreement was entered into at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, the respondent has no jurisdiction to levy tax on the transfer of the right to use the Trademark in question. While the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel cannot be said to be without merit, we see no reason to adjudicate these, and the other, questions raised in the Writ Petition as a substantive appeal is still pending adjudication before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (the 2nd respondent). We consider it appropriate, in these circumstances, to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. Pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent, the respondents herein shall not take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. The Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ V.V.S.RAO, J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 27-07-2010 MRKR [1] 119 STC 182