IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH 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 : 21807 of 2008 Between: M/s. The Chodavaram Co-operative Sugars Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. G.V. Ramaiah No.B.1109, Govada - 531 023, Visakhapatnam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam Dist. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal Andhra Pradesh Nampally, 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 Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in demanding the disputed tax through the impugned notice dated 23- 9-2008 and contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.49,01,885/- for the assessment year 2003-04 (APGST) in pursuance of the dismissal of the appeal by 2nd Respondent by his order dated 25-8-2008 during the pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and unjustiﬁed and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.49,01,885/- for the assessment year 2003-04 under the APGST Act, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. 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 action of the ﬁrst respondent in demanding the disputed tax by notice dated 23.9.2008 and contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.49,01,885/- consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal by the second respondent, pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-04, pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner Company is a registered dealer on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent. While so, the petitioner was assessed by the ﬁrst respondent by order dated 29.3.2007 disallowing claim of the petitioner on the turnover of inter-State sales of molasses against ‘C’ Forms and assessed the said turnovers as taxable turnover at 20%. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also ﬁled a petition seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax, but the second respondent, however, dismissed the application by order dated 27.7.2007. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred revision before the third respondent, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled W.P. No. 22840 of 2007 and this court, by order dated 29.10.2007 ordered stay of recovery, on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax. Pursuant thereto, it is stated that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.49,01,885/- in all. Thereafter, by order dated 25.8.2008, the second respondent dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said order passed by the second respondent, dismissing the appeal, the petitioner preferred further Appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. But in view of the order of the second respondent dismissing the appeal, the ﬁrst respondent issued notice dated 23.9.2008 demanding to pay the balance tax amount and since the Tribunal is not vested with the powers to grant stay and the third respondent, in the ﬁrst instance has refused stay, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent did not grant stay and, therefore, pursuant to the dismissal of the Appeal by the second respondent and consequential issuance of notice dated 23.9.2008, the petitioner apprehends that that respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the balance tax amount, pending appeal before the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised, 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 demanded 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 balance tax amount, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. It is made clear that the amount said to have been paid by the petitioner, 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 Ramesh Ranganathan September 30, 2008 Copy in a week //BO// MAS