IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21885 of 2008 Between: M/s. Pioneer DTH Services, D.No.29-14-24, 2nd Floor, Governopet, Vijayawada-2 Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri G.S.Prasad, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Suryaraopet Circle, Vijayawada. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada. 3 Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 10,23,295/- for the assessment period April, 2005 to September, 2005 (APVAT), arising in pursuance of the stay rejection order of third respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LV(2)/424/2008, dated 23-06-2008, pending disposal of the appeal before the sales Tax Appellate Tribunal or to pass 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 23.06.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.10,23,295/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.V.A.T. Act, 2005 and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment period April, 2005 to September, 2005, pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership ﬁrm and consignment agent for and on behalf of M/s. ESSEL Agro Private Limited, New Delhi for distribution of Antenna Systems supplied by it to users in the State of Andhra Pradesh and is an assessee on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent herein. The ﬁrst respondent by order dated 16.12.2005, has brought to tax a turnover of Rs.81,86,359/- for the tax period from April, 2005 to September, 2005 treating the lease transactions as sale of DTH and issued notice in Form VAT 305. Aggrieved by the said assessment order dated 16.12.2005, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Second Respondent, who remanded the matter to the ﬁrst respondent and the ﬁrst respondent by his proceedings dated 12.9.2007 again brought to tax the said turnover and levied a tax of Rs.10,23,295/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent, who dismissed the same by an order dated 27.3.2008. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and also preferred an application before the third respondent seeking to stay collection of the disputed tax pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected by the third respondent by the order impugned herein. Hence, 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 vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of the stay petition by the third respondent, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the contentions raised, 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 demanded tax amount, 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 Tribunal. 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 Ramesh Ranganathan September 30, 2008 Copy in a week //BO// MAS