IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH 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 : 8 8 7 8 of 2010 Between: M/s. Sri Chakra Cements Limited, 6-3-668/10/66, Durganagar Colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, Represented by its Dy.General Manager (Commercial) Sri T.Ramsuri. ..... PETITIONER V/s. The Commercial Tax Officer, Panjagutta Circle, Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad & Anr. .....RESPONDENTS The Division Bench made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8 8 7 8 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari} Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the third respondent in dismissing the stay application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02 under the CST Act through the impugned proceedings in CCT.Ref.No.LIII (1)/72/2010, dated 05-3-2010 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequently to restrain the first respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.12,83,626-00 for the assessment year 2001-02 under the CST Act, pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a proprietory concern of Orient Paper and Industries Limited and is a registered dealer under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) respectively and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent and it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement. 3. It is stated that during the assessment year 2001-02 the petitioner effected sales of cement locally as well as inter-state and has reported the turnovers scored by it by filing monthly returns and paid the applicable taxes. It is stated that the first respondent failed to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in right perspective and had confirmed the levy through his proceedings dated 03-2- 2005. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal, challenging the orders passed by the first respondent before the second respondent. Though several contentions were raised before the second respondent but the second respondent confirmed the orders of the first respondent and dismissed the appeal through his proceedings dated 09-12-2009 on untenable grounds. 5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the second respondent in dismissing the appeal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 09-2-2010, which is pending adjudication. 6. It is stated that the stay application filed before the third respondent seeking stay pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was rejected by the third respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 05-3-2010. Hence, the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 8. 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 the date of receipt of a copy of the order but however, 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. 9. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao 20-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOORTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8 8 7 8 OF 2010 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 9 2 Date: 20-04-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L