IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8676 of 2009 Between: M/s.Aban Constructions Private Limited, (Now known as Kirloskar Constructions & Engineers Ltd), Janapriya Crest, 113, Pantheon road,Egnore, Chennai-600008, rep.by its Deputy Manager- Taxation Mr.K.Chandru ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, Aryapuram circle Rajahmundry, 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT),Kakinada 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra PRadesh Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside order of the 3rd respondent in CCTs.Ref.NO.LV(3)/152/2009 dated 25.3.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified and consequently restrain the second respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of tax of Rs.20,64,605/- for the year 2002-03 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench at Visakhapatnam Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At the request of the learned advocates, this petition is finally heard today. 3. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 50% of the disputed tax, but he should be given credit of the amount of tax which has already been paid. According to him, there appears to be some confusion in the proceedings and, therefore, this petition has been filed so as to see that the petitioner has to pay in all 50% of the disputed tax. 4. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner, we feel that there appears to be some confusion. 5. So as to clarify the position, we direct that the petitioner shall pay a further amount of Rs.5.30 Lakhs to the respondent authorities during the pendency of the appeal. The said amount shall be paid within four weeks from today. 6. In view of the above direction, no coercive method shall be used for recovery of the remaining amount of tax, pending the appeal filed by the petitioner. 7. The petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th April, 2009 ks