IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 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 : 7757 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Lakshmi Priya Agencies, Dr. No.15-8-296,, Shop No. 10, Durga Complex, Ghosha Mahal, Hyderabad – 2, Rep.by its Managing Partner Kr. K.Srinivas ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Begum Bazar Circle, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,91,833/-from out of the total disputed tax of Rs.5,62,291/- for the assessment year 2005-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and to consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for collection of the disputed tax pending appeal before the second respondent, petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in distribution and effects sales of the products of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited viz., soaps, shampoos, etc. and it is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent on the basis of the report of Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officers, Hyderabad, on inspection issued show cause notice dated 15.2.2009 proposing to levy tax at 12.5% for the period from April, 2005 to March, 2006 and accordingly by order dated 27.3.2009, assessed the petitioner to tax of Rs.3,63,066/- as proposed in the show cause notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent along with a stay petition, which was rejected by order dated 20.07.2009. Assailing the said rejection, petitioner preferred revision before the third respondent, which was dismissed by the impugned order. It is stated that pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,71,233/-. Pursuant to the dismissal of the revision, the first respondent issued notice dated 4.3.2010 demanding payment of the balance disputed tax. Hence, the present writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second and third respondents, they have refused to grant stay. He further contends that pursuant to the dismissal of revision by the third respondent, issuance of notice dated 4.3.2010 by the first respondent for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending appeal before the second respondent, is illegal. 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, as per the impugned order 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 Authority. 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 08, 2010 MAS