HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 19694 OF 2009 Dated 23rd September, 2009 Between M/s. N.Srinatha Reddy …Petitioner and Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal 2nd Floor, Commercial Tax Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, and others …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 19694 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order impugned in this Writ Petition is the order of the first respondent dated 09-01-2009, rejecting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.9,14,951/- pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is a works contractor registered on the rolls of the third respondent. During the year 2003-2004 he executed works contracts for the Government. The third respondent, by order dt.22-6- 2005 assessed the petitioner to tax under Section 14 of the APGST Act, 1957. The second respondent sought to revise the orders passed by the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner did not maintain books of accounts in accordance with rule 45(1-c) of the APGST Rules. The petitioner, however, did not submit their reply to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent on the plea that their Chartered Accountant was un-well. The second respondent, thereafter, passed an order on 20-11-2007 confirming the proposal made in the show cause notice and imposed additional tax of Rs.12,19,935/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad vide T.A.No. 610 of 2008. They also filed an application seeking stay of operation of the order dated 20-11-2007. In his order dated 9-1-2009 the first respondent noted that the petitioner did not respond to the revision show cause notice either in person or by filing any objections. He observed that the petitioner had not maintained the books of accounts as prescribed under Rule 45 (1-c) of the APGST Rules, and, hence revision was made as per Rule 6(3)(ii) of the APGST Rules by allowing 30% exemption on gross receipts for the work done by the petitioner. On this ground, the application was rejected. Dr.S.R.R.Viswanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition wherein the petitioner has stated that they had maintained books of accounts as prescribed under Rule 45(1-c) and the same were audited by the Chartered Accountant. The fact, however, remains that even in the grounds of appeal filed before the first respondent, the petitioner had merely denied the allegation that they were not maintaining books of accounts in accordance with Rule 45(1-c) and had stated that the books were being maintained as per the accounting package in the computer. The question as to whether the petitioner was maintaining books of accounts, as required under Rule 45(1-c) of the APGST Rules, is a matter for examination by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, before whom the appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending. Ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed not take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax subject to the condition that the petitioner pays 75% of the disputed tax, within a period of six weeks from today. Amounts, if any, already paid by the petitioner towards the disputed tax shall be given credit to. There shall be an order accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ------------------------------------ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated 23rd September, 2009 Msnr.