THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17816 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No.17866 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) These two matters are being disposed of by a common order, as the petitioner and respondents are the same and the grievance is also same. The petitioner is a dealer engaged in works contracts on the rolls of the 3rd respondent. For the relevant period 2003-2004 and 2004- 2005, the petitioner had a number of works contracts on hand which statedly required, in some cases, the period of twelve months to complete and in other cases, two to four years. The assessment was completed for both the years. The 2nd respondent, however, initiated steps under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 proposing to revise and withdraw the assessment order. The 2nd respondent revised the proposal determining the total tax due under Section 5(f) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred T.A. No.342 of 2010 and T.A. No.343 of 2010. The petitioner filed applications before the 2nd respondent for stay of recovery of the impugned tax. The same was dismissed. They then filed revision before the 1st respondent seeking stay of recovery. The impugned orders dated 30.06.2010 reads as under: “The contentions of the petitioner are examined with reference to the revision order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad. The case of the revisional authority is that in any works contract it is the value of the goods at the time of incorporation which is liable to tax and not the purchase value. In support of this observation, the revisional authority cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Gannon Dunkerly and Company Limited (88 STC 204). It is also the finding of the revisional authority that even in the cases of works contracts which have extended for period of more than one year it is the incorporation value of the goods purchased and used in that year that should be subjected to tax under Rule 6(3)(i) of the APGST Rules. Since, the petitioner could not furnish the incorporation value of the goods purchased and used during the year of assessment in question the revisional authority by following the provisions of Rule 6(2) determined the taxable turnover by deducting the expenses listed out under the said rule from the total contract receipts for that year. The net turnover thus determined represents the incorporation value of the goods purchased and used by the petitioner in the execution of the works contracts in that year. I do not find any infirmity in the findings or the determination of the taxable turnover by the revisional authority.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already moved the learned Tribunal for expeditious disposal, that the matter stands posted to 10.09.2010 for such hearing and, therefore, pending the disposal of the Sales Tax Tribunal the 1st respondent ought to have stayed the recovery. According to him, the 1st respondent committed a grave error in not granting stay. It is axiomatic that, when once a statute provides for remedies before specially constituted Tribunals and such remedies have already been availed, ordinarily a writ petition would not lie. It has become a common practice for the tax payer to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek stay of recovery pending the appeal/revision before various authorities/tribunals. In all these cases, it is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the Court judiciously. There may be cases where, if the impugned orders are not granted, the appeals/revisions may be rendered useless especially when the questions of jurisdiction or the question of illegal levy/collection are involved. We are convinced that this is not one such case, where denial of an order of stay would negate the right of appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. We, however, observe that the respondents shall not take any coercive action for recovery of the impugned tax for a period of four weeks from today subject to condition that the petitioner pays the impugned tax within that period. We also request the learned Tribunal to dispose of the appeals which stands - as stated by the petitioner’s Counsel - posted to10.09.2010. The Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. ______________ V.V.S.RAO, J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 24.08.2010 Note: Issue copy by 26.08.2010. mrkr