IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH 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 : 6193 of 2010 Between: M/s. Karimulla Khan, 3-27, Nanasahebpet, Punganuru, Chittoor District, Rep. by its proprietor Mr. K.Karimulla Khan ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Madanapalli Circle, Chittoor District and another .....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 04.10.2009 passed by the second respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,14,685/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the CST Act and to consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment year 2003-2004 pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of beedi leaves and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Punganur, who by order dated 1.9.2005 had completed the assessment under CST Act. But the first respondent has revised the assessment by order dated 18.3.2009 and brought a turnover of Rs.11,34,845/- to tax at 10%. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, which was dismissed by an order dated 25.6.2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kurnool, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in AR No. 715 of 2009 and also moved stay petition, before the second respondent, which was summarily rejected by the second respondent, vide the order impugned in this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the second respondent, coercive steps are being contemplated for recovery of the disputed tax by the respondents. 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 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 March 18, 2010 MAS