IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17854 of 2008 Between: M/s. Neuland Laboratories Limited, Ameerpet, Hyderabad Rep. by its Vice President (Finance), Sri A.Raghavendra Charyulu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Sanathnagar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 Additional Commissioner (CT) (L), 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 a Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.21,05,653/- for the assessment year 2004-05 (CST) arising in pursuance of the stay rejection order of the third respondent dated 18.07.2008 passed in CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/527/2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent or to pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY 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 18.7.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.21,05,653/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2004-05 under CST Act, pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of bulk drugs and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2004-2005 by order dated 31.3.2008 under CST Act on the gross and net turnover of Rs.1,55,64,90,286/- and Rs.23,55,70,474/- respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appealed before the Second Respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.21,05,653/- which was rejected by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed a revision before the third respondent, which was also rejected by order dated 18.7.2008, which is impugned in 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 by the order impugned in this writ petition. 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 tax amount due, 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 P.V. Sanjay Kumar. August 20, 2008 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}