THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI and THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 1203 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent rejecting the stay application vide orders dated 14.12.2007 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to grant stay of collection of disputed demand of Rs.1,04,617/- for the assessment year 2007-08 (CST), pending disposal of the appeal No. BV-58/2007-08 before the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The petitioner is carrying on business in Aluminum Sheets, Coils etc. and is a dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramgopalpet Circle, Secunderabad both under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 and the Central Sales Tax Act. The case of the petitioner is that vide G.O.Ms.No. 97 dated 25.1.2003 interstate sale of Aluminum is taxable at @ 1% against ‘C’ Form. While so, for the assessment year 2007-08, the 1st respondent completed the assessment by order dated 2.11.2007 levying tax @ 4% on the interstate sales turnover on the ground that the items sheets, coils and extrusions made out of Aluminum do not come under the purview of Aluminum and accordingly the 1st respondent passed the assessment proceedings dated 2.11.2007. Against the said proceedings, the petitioner filed appeal along with stay application seeking stay of collection of disputed differential rate of tax @ 3% of Rs.1,04,617/- before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by order dated 14.12.2007 rejected the stay application filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. Though the petitioner contends that as per G.O.Ms.No. 97 dated 25.1.2003 the interstate sale of Aluminum is taxable @ 1% against ‘C’ Form, the ground on which the 1st respondent levied tax @ 4% is said to be that the items sheets, coils and extrusions made out of Aluminum do not come under the purview of Aluminum. Even according to the petitioner, the differential rate of tax is only Rs. 1,04,617/-. As the appeal filed by the petitioner against the assessment proceedings of the 1st respondent is pending before the 2nd respondent and as prima facie there is no case to grant stay of collection of disputed tax, this Court does not find any error or legal infirmity in the order passed by the 2nd respondent refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,04,617/-. We find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________ G.ROHINI, J. January 25, 2008 MVB.