`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 12961 of 2008 Between: M/s. L.G.Electronics India Limited, Pulla Reddy House, Kharkana, Secunderabad, rep. by its Branch Accountant Sri Atul Chaturvedi S/o. Amrish Kumar Chaturvedi. ..... PETITIONER A N D 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) (FAC) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally St. Road, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Abids Division, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU) Abids Division, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 06.05.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LV(1)/313/2008 for assessment year 2001-2002 (APGST) as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. WRIT PETITION No. 12961 OF 2008 O R D E R : { Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari } Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 06-5- 2008 passed by the first respondent in CCTs Ref. No. LV (1)/313/2008 for assessment year 2001-2002 and rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.9,93,273/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act, 1957 and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2001-2002, pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent and engaged in the business of various electronic and electrical goods. It is stated that during the assessment year 2001-2002, the petitioner effected sale of various goods and one of the items dealt with by the petitioner is microwave oven. It is also stated that the third respondent after perusing the books of accounts and the nature of the goods dealt with by the petitioner, passed an order dated 02-7-2004 for the assessment year 2001- 2002 levying tax @ 8% in respect of sales of microwave ovens on the ground that the same would fall within the ambit of entry 38-D of the first schedule to the APGST Act, 1957. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 17-6-2006 proposing to revise the order dated 02-7-2004 passed by the third respondent and proposed to levy tax @ 12% by classifying the goods under entry 6-C of the 6th schedule to the APGST Act, 1957. It is stated that the petitioner submitted detailed reply contending that the microwave ovens being electronic goods would fall under entry 38-D, the second respondent passed an order dated 16-2- 2008 confirming the show cause notice and thereby revised the order dated 02-7-2004 passed by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the order dated 16-2-2008 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. Sri B.Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the list of goods appended to entry 6-C belong to one genus of electrical goods. By applying the principles of ejus dem generis, the microwave oven, which are electronic goods as such and being technically and commercially different from ovens does not fall under entry 6-C of the 6th schedule to the APGST Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the second respondent failed to note that the entry 6-C covers and includes ovens only, among other electrical goods. Since, ovens are technically and commercially different from microwave oven, it is incorrect to classify the microwave oven under entry 6-C. In other words, microwave ovens are not specifically included in the list of goods appended to entry 6-C and therefore the same would fall under entry 38 (D) which is an entry dealing with the residuary electronic goods not falling under entries 38 to 38 [C] of the first schedule to the APGST Act. The learned counsel also contended that under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, microwave ovens and other ovens are treated as different commodities and it is evident that microwave ovens and other ovens are commercially and technically different from each other. Therefore, the second respondent could not have classified microwave ovens under entry 6-C, as the said entry covers and includes only ovens. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent has refused to grant stay. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, the second respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 6. 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 50% of the disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, pending finalization of TA.No.809 of 2004 by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Viskhapatnam. It is also made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. 7. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 23-6-2008. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies