IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4899 of 2009 Between: M/s. Manjeera Estates Pvt. Ltd., #304, Aditya Trade Center, Aditya Enclave Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-38, rep. by its Asst. Vice President (Finance & Account) B. Surya Prakasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally St. Road, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Nampally St. Road, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, (OFA), Panjagutta Division, Mayur Kushal Complex, Hyderabad. 4 The Bank Of India, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad rep. by its Branch Manager. .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt. 2.1.2009 passed by the 1st respondent in reference CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/764/2008 for the year 2004-05(APGST) as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner:M/SC.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 4899 OF 2009 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. Challenging the order of the 1st respondent, dated 2.1.2009 in rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the 3rd respondent and is engaged in the business of execution of works contracts. According to the petitioner, the works contracts are assessable to tax under Section 5F of the APGST Act @ 8% of the turnover of the value of the goods involved in the execution of works of contract. There is also an option to pay tax under composition scheme in terms of Section 5 G of the APGST Act. The petitioner executed works contract during the year 2004-05 and filed statutory audit reports before the 3rd respondent opting to pay tax under the composition scheme for the period prior to 2004-05. Accordingly, it filed an application in Form L before the 3rd respondent for renewal of L1 Certificate to enable the petitioner to continue to pay tax under the said scheme. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent without taking into consideration the renewal application filed by the petitioner for renewal of L1 Certificate of the year 2004-05, passed an assessment order on 29.3.2008 determining the turnover in terms of Rule 6(3) (ii) of the APGST Rules, 1957. The 3rd respondent, while passing the said order, did not consider the request of the petitioner for passing the assessment order under 5G of the APGST Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, through order dated 15.10.2008 while confirming the order of the 3rd respondent, dismissed the said appeal. The petitioner again, filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Pending the appeal, it also filed an application for stay before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. The 1st respondent, through the impugned order dated 2.1.2009, rejected the stay application. Hence the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the 1st respondent has rejected the stay application. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal, subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 13th March, 2009 _________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Note: Furnish c.c. in 3 days. B/o pnb