IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No. 20242 of 2009 Between: M/S. Patel Engineering Ltd., 3-6-493, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Manager (Admn.,) Diwakaran Nair S/o. K. K. Pillai, 57 yrs R/o. Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1) The State Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2) The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda Circle, Hyderabad. 3) The Appellate Dy. Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 4) Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) Office of the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 5) The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P. Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 3-8-2009 in TMP No. 243/2009 in T.A.No. 273/2009 of the 5th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently stay all further proceedings relating to the collection of the balance disputed tax of Rs. 1,50,72,116/- for the Assessment year 2001- 2002 (APGST) by the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per Hon’ble Shri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare order dated 03.08.2009 passed by respondent No.5 in TMP No.243/2009 in T.A.No.273/2009 as illegal. The petitioner is a contractor, who has undertaken the work awarded by the erstwhile electricity board. Respondent No.2, by order dated 29.10.2004, assessed the tax due for the year 2001-02 at Rs.1,70,27,636/-, under Rule 6 (3)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Questioning the said assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3. The petitioner’s plea that assessment should have been made under Rule 6 (3)(i) of the Rules was accepted by respondent No.3 and accordingly the petitioner’s appeal was allowed by order dated 17.01.2005. The said order was, however, suo motu revised by respondent No.4 by order dated 31.01.2009 whereby respondent No.4 restored the original assessment made by respondent No.2. The petitioner questioned the said order of respondent No.4 before respondent No.5. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for stay, which was rejected by the order impugned in this writ petition. During the course of hearing, Shri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 has not properly considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the assessing authority and also respondent No.4 committed serious error in making assessment under Rule 6 (3)(ii) instead of under Rule 6 (3)(i) of the Rules. He further submitted that the petitioner already deposited a part of the disputed tax pending the appeal. Since the appeal is pending before respondent No.5, we refrain from expressing our opinion on merits because, any such expression of opinion may ultimately affect the outcome of the appeal. However, in our considered view, interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to pay 50% of the total tax due. While calculating the said 50%, the amount, if any paid by the petitioner towards the disputed tax, shall be given credit to. The petitioner is given four weeks’ time to make the said deposit. The deposit of money by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the appeal pending before respondent No.5. Till disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents, subject to the petitioner complying with the aforesaid condition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26418 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.09.2009 ES