THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.1571 of 2010 04.2.2010 Between: M/s.Saraiwwalaa Agro Refineries Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Ravindra Kumar Gupta … Petitioner AND Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.1571 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner – an incorporated company; is a dealer on the file of second respondent. It is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of edible oil. For the assessment year 2003-2004, petitioner filed return on Central Sales Tax Act 1956, declaring a net turnover of Rs.32.19 crores. It appears that the manufacturers of edible oil sell the product to dealers from whom orders are procured by agents. It came to light that some of the agents are non-existent and, therefore, there were doubtful transactions. On a representation made by oil dealers like petitioner, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No.456, dated 05.7.2004, granting exemption from payment of Central Sales Tax of 10% in respect of doubtful transactions on condition of paying local tax at the rate of 4%. Petitioner declared turnover at Rs.1.70 crores as possible doubtful transactions and paid 4% local tax in accordance with the said G.O. In respect of balance transactions, the agents issued ‘F’ Forms and second respondent granted exemption in the assessment order dated 03.2.2007. In December 2008, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (DCCT) initiated revisional proceedings and assessed turnover of Rs.14,87,71,787/- attracting tax at 10%. Aggrieved by the orders of DCCT dated 29.9.2009 raising a demand of Rs.1,48,77,179/-, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957. Petitioner also filed stay petition before first respondent in Form-22. The same having been dismissed by impugned order dated 27.11.2009, petitioner is before this Court. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner already paid half of the demand (Rs.73,19,295/-) by way of four cheques issued in November and December 2009 and that if demand for payment of balance amount is not stayed, petitioner would suffer injury. He also submits that in the first week of December 2009, there was fire mishap in the main processing unit as a result of which plant, machinery, equipment and stock worth about Rs.17,00,000/- has been lost and, therefore, first respondent failed to exercise jurisdiction properly. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Taxes while refuting petitioner’s submissions supported the impugned order. The proceedings of DCCT are subject matter of appeal before a quasi-judicial authority, namely, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). Under Section 21(6) of APGST Act, first respondent is conferred with power to pass necessary orders on stay petitions. Relevant aspect to be considered while exercising jurisdiction is whether it is a case for grant of stay and if so, what are the conditions to be imposed. At that stage, first respondent is conferred with limited jurisdiction under Section 21(6) of APGST Act that of granting an interlocutory order cannot go into the merits of appeal. A perusal of the impugned order would show that first respondent grossly erred in recording a finding on merits of the case as to whether the exemption claimed by petitioner in respect of doubtful transactions is valid or not. That is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of STAT and first respondent cannot go into the matters. Of course, first respondent can always consider the reasons and grounds put forth by an aggrieved assessee in respect of his petition for grant of stay. In that view of the matter, first respondent has committed an error. Therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order and remit the matter to first respondent to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned order bearing CCT’s Ref.No.LIII(4)/519/2009, dated 27.11.2009, and remit the same to first respondent with a direction to dispose of stay petition within a period of ten days from today. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) __________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) February , 2010. YS