THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.1117 OF 2010 29-01-2010 BETWEEN; M/s.Safari Sales Pvt Ltd., rep. by its authorized Officer C.H.Sudhakar Rao ...Petitioner vs. The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department and three others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.1117 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The order of the 2nd respondent dated 22-12-2009 declining grant o stay is challenged herein. The petitioner is a dealer on the rolls of the 4th respondent engaged i the business of soft and moulded luggage. The 4th responden computed the assessment for the year 2004-05 under the A.P.GS Act,1957 on the gross sale of Rs.2,61,28,044/- and calculated the ta liability at Rs.3,62,196/-, by the order of assessment dated 07-02-2006 After a due process the 3rd respondent revised the assessmen in purported exercise of powers under Section 20(2) of the Act by an orde dated 11-05-2009 and brought to tax a gross turnover o Rs.4,24,99,923/-; arrived at a net taxable turnover of R.4,05,64,512/-; an levied tax @ 8% treating the turnover as the first sale within the State, b the order dated 11-05-2009. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a appeal before the A.P. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 12-09-2009 an moved the 2nd respondent for grant of stay of the dispute tax. By the order impugned dated 22-12-2009 the 2nd respondent decline to grant stay and thus is the petitioner before this Court. As the substantive appeal of the petitioner against the revisiona order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 11-05-2009 is pendin consideration before the STAT we do not propose to record ou conclusions on the substantive contentions on merits, addressed by th petitioner as to the perversity of the revisional order. Suffice it to note tha the petitioner has an arguable case in the pending appeal before th STAT. Prima facie however it appears that the revisional authority whil arriving at the balance tax liability of Rs.26,81,217/- appears to have faile to give credit to the petitioner of the amount Rs.15,73,215/- which has bee paid. Prima facie therefore the tax liability of the petitioner would pro tant come down around to Rs.11,08,055/- and that would be the disputed ta liability for substantive consideration by the STAT. In the circumstances and on the above prima facie analysis, the orde of the 2nd respondent declining to grant stay in toto does not appear to be sound exercise of discretion. We accordingly direct the respondents not t take any coercive steps against the petitioner for collection of the dispute tax as determined by the 3rd respondent’s order dated 11-09 2009 on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.11,08,055/- after takin credit for any amounts already deposited, subsequent to the order o revisional authority, within a period of four(4) weeks from today. In defau of such deposit within the time stipulated herein, the respondents would b at liberty, on the occurrence of the default to take steps in accordance wit law for recovery of the entire amount of tax as determined by the revisiona authority-the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above at the stage of admissio after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Abdu Muqeeth Qureshi and Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, the learned Specia Standing Counsel for Commercial taxes for the respondents. No order a to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 29th JANUARY 2010. Note: Issue CC In two days. (B/o) TSNR