IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH 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 : 7389 OF 2010 Between: M/s. WEP Peripherals Limited, Block H-1, 4th Floor, Surya Towers, SD Road, Secunderabad, Rep.by its Senior Accounts Executive Sri Y.Ashok ..... PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner (CT)(Legal) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taes, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and others .....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 18.3.2010 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,54,180/- for the tax period from April, 2006 to June, 2006 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and to consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps to collect the disputed tax pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act engaged in the business of manufacture of computer peripherals, electronic typewriters, Dot Matrix Printers and UPS and also execution of the works contracts and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent herein. Accordingly, the third respondent on the turnovers filed by the petitioner for the period from April, 2006 to June, 2006 assumed that the transactions are sale transactions of ration cards and election identity cards, levied higher rate of tax at 12.5%. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent who also rejected the same without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the rejection of appeal by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also moved stay petition before the first respondent, who summarily rejected the same, 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 first respondent, the first respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, the second respondent has already issued bank attachment notice for recovery of the tax under Sec.29 of the APVAT Act. 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 four 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 April 06, 2010 MAS