IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24429 of 2008 Between: The Premier Mica Company 13/176-1, Thyagaraja Street, Gudur - 524 101, Nellore District, A.P. Represented by its Partner Mr.Vikram Chesetty. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur Nellore District. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Additional/Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the stay application ﬁled by petitioner through the impugned proceedings dated 26.8.08 in CCT's Ref.No.LV(1)/619/2008 and the consequential action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax and is contemplating to take coercive steps as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.1,25,400/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 under the CST Act pending disposal of the appeal in T.A.No.333 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Additional Bench, Visakhapatnam, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,25,400/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the C.S.T. Act and consequently direct the respondent not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2003-04, pending appeal TA No. 333 of 2004 before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership ﬁrm carrying on business in manufacture and sale of Mica under the brand Premica 325 and an assessee on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent herein. During the year 2003-2004, the petitioner exported Mica to South Africa. The ﬁrst respondent, has completed the assessment for the year 2003-04 by proceedings dated 30.11.2005 under CST Act exempting a turnover of Rs.1,57,18,423/-. Similarly, the ﬁrst respondent also completed assessment under APGST Act for the said year by proceedings dated 30.11.2005 giving exemption on a turnover of Rs.1,93,40,062/-. While so, the second respondent proposed to revise the assessment order dated 30.11.2005 and issued show cause notice dated 8.10.2007 proposing to withdraw the exemption granted on the export sales on a turnover of Rs.12,54,000/-, to which the petitioner ﬁled detailed objections. However, the second respondent has conﬁrmed the proposed levy by proceedings dated 19.5.2008. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Visakhapatnam, in TA No. 333 of 2008 and also moved stay petition, before the third respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed demand of Rs.1,25,400/-, which was summarily rejected by the third respondent, vide the order impugned herein. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the third respondent, the ﬁrst respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the 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 demand, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the 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 Ramesh Ranganathan November 7, 2008 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs //BO// MAS