IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19264 of 2008 Between: M/s. Priya Enterprises H.No.4-408(1), G.T. Road, Chilakaluripeta, Guntur District Rep. by its Executive Partner Mr.D.Gopi. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Chilakaluripeta Circle, Guntur District. 2 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the stay application by proceedings dated 27.5.2008 in CCT's Ref.No.LV(4)/257/2008 as arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of the Act and also in violation of principles of natural justice and Rule of law and also decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal reported in 46 APSTJ 49 and consequently to set aside the same as null and void and grant stay of collection disputed demand of Rs.2,15,933/- for the assessment year 2002-03 pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, Additional Bench, Visakhapatnam and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19264 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per T HE HON’BLE MRS. JUST ICE T .MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 27.05.2008 passed by the second respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.2,15,933/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently, direct the respondent not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2002-03, pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership ﬁrm carrying on business in soft drinks and a registered dealer on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent herein. The ﬁrst respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2002-2003 by proceedings, dated 27.04.2006. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur-II Division, Guntur, suo motu proposed to revise the assessment order by withdrawing the set oﬀ amount of Rs.2,15,933/- on the ground that the assessing authority erroneously allowed set oﬀ of tax on certain items. Against the said order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and stay application before the second respondent seeking stay of collection of disputed demand of Rs.2,15,933/- pending appeal. The stay application was summarily rejected by the second respondent by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the second 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 disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight 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. Dated:08.09.2008 GS/ASP