IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9912 OF 2010 Between: M/S. Chloride International Limited, Plot No. 98, 106 & 107, 1st Floor, Tadbund X Road, Secunderabad, Rep.by its Branch Accountant Mrs. Veetha Vani ..... PETITIONER AND The Appellate Deputy Comissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, 5th Floor, Office of th Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Mandamus to set aside the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the first respondent in Appeal No. PV/75/2008-09 rejecting the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture and also deals in renewable energy equipments, solar lanterns, etc., and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent herein. The petitioner effected sales directly to the Government of Jarkhand and submitted ‘C’ forms to an extent of Rs.2,87,99,971/- and the second respondent after acknowledging the same on 19.9.2009, passed an assessment order, without giving opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its case. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and paid 12.5% of the disputed tax before the second respondent. It is stated that since the second respondent is contemplated coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent while brushing aside the same, has dismissed the appeal itself and pursuant to the said dismissal of the appeal, the second respondent is contemplating coercive steps for recovery of the balance 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 within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. 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. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 28, 2010 MAS