THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NOs.27495, 27604 and 27616 OF 2009 18-12-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Ramky Infrastructure Limited ...Petitioner (petitioner in three writ petitions) vs. The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal,A.P. Hyderabad and others ...Respondents (Respondents in three writ petitions) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NOs.27495, 27604 and 27616 OF 2009 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per GR,J) All the writ petitions involve similar questions of law and have bee filed by the same petitioner. They are heard together and are bein disposed of by this common order. The orders of the 1st respondent, all dated 30-11-2009 declining gran of stay of collection of the disputed tax, are assailed in these writ petitions The facts in W.P.No.27495 of 2009 are recorded. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of A.P. VA Act, 2005 and the CST Act, 1956, on the rolls of the 3r respondent. It is engaged in the business of executing works contract including laying of roads, construction of buildings etc., The 3rd respondent having examined the books of accounts an after a due process passed the orders of assessment dated 13.03.2009 12.03.2009 and 10-07-2009 for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-0 and 2007-2008 respectively. The petitioner made a part payment of th disputed tax and preferred appeals to the 2nd respondent. These appeal are stated to be pending. Along with the appeals, it preferred application for grant of stay of collection of the tax as assessed, which is the subject o the dispute in the appeals. The 2nd respondent by the order impugne declined grant of stay. The petitioner has also moved the 2nd responden for expeditious hearing of the appeals. Inter alia, the assessing authority rejected the petitioner’ contentions/objections as to liability to tax claiming recourse to th provisions of the Section 4(7)(e) of the A.P. VAT Act,2005, on the groun that the purchases from the outside the State were incorporated in th works within the State, on which tax was paid under the CST Act as Inte state purchases and therefore these goods could not be taxed again. Th petitioner is seen to have an arguable position to address in the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent. Hence, in the interests of justice we consider it appropriate to direc the respondents not to take any coercive measures for recovery of the ta as assessed by the 3rd respondent by the orders of assessment dated 13 03-2009, 12-03-2009 and 10-07-2009(in W.P.No.27616 of 2009) o condition that the petitioner deposits 75% of the amount, as assessed within a period of eight (8) weeks from today, after taking credit for th amount of tax already paid. It is stated by Sri J.V.Rao, the learned counse for the petitioner (in W.P.Nos.27495 and 27604 of 2009) that 50% of th tax has already been paid prior to preferring the appeals before the 2nd respondent. This assertion is recorded. The eventual liability of the petitioner will depend upon the outcom of the appeals, by the decision of the 2nd respondent thereon. The 2n respondent may consider hearing and disposing of the appeals preferre by the petitioner, expeditiously. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of after hearing S J.V.Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner (in W.P.Nos.27495 an 27604 of 2009), Sri Lakshmi Kumaran, the learned counsel for th petitioner (W.P.No.27616 of 2009) and Sri P.Balaji Varma, th learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes for th respondents. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 18th DECEMBER 2009. TSNR