IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH 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 : 20337 of 2008 Between: M/s. Vinayaka Constructions, Ubalanka East Godavari District, Rep by its managing partner, Sri Chinta Nagi Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal O/o. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Mandapeta, East Godavari District. .....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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus setting aside the Order of the 1st Respondent passed in CCT's Ref.No. LV (3)/836/2007 dt. 18-12-2007 and interdict the Respondent authorities from collecting the balance disputed tax of Rs. 3,71,602/- until the disposal of the appeal for the year 2003-04 pending disposal of the appeal for the year 2003-04 pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhpatnam and to pass such other suitable orders, as this Court may deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SARVESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following order : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20337 of 2008 O R D E R : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari ) The Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the Order passed by the 1st Respondent passed in CCT's Ref.No.LV(3)/836/2007 dated 18-12-2007 and interdict the respondent authorities from collecting the balance disputed tax of Rs. 3,71,602/- pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhpatnam and to pass such other suitable orders, as this Court may deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Aggrieved of the orders passed by the ﬁrst respondent in rejecting the stay application of the petitioner dated 18-12-2007 in CCT’s Ref.No. LV (3)/836/2007, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The issue involved in the appeal is that whether the expenses amounting to Rs.49,84,836- 00 are eligible for exemption as per the provisions of Rule 6 (2) of the APGST Rules or not ? 4. It is stated that the petitioner is a works contractor and a registered dealer under APGST Act, 1957 and the petitioner is also regular assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Mandapeta Circle, East Godavari district. For the year 2003-04 the petitioner ﬁled returns under the Act, against which the second respondent assessment order dated 31-01-2005 determining the net turn over at Rs.61,18,58i7- 00. Thereafter, the Dy.Commissioner (CT) Kakinada, initiated revisional proceedings proposing to disallow the turnovers to the extent of Rs.1,01,97,055-00 which was earlier allowed as exempted turnover by the assessing authority and passed revisional orders in Ref.No.6/2006-07, GI.No.7801/2003-04 dated 24-3-2007. Against the said order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, involving the disputed tax of Rs.3,98,788-00 and out of which the petitioner had already paid Rs.24,186-00. The said appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Further the petitioner is also ﬁled application seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax before the Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, but the same was rejected vide orders in CCT’s Ref.No. LV(3)/836/2007, dated 18-12-2007. Questioning the said orders, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the respondent, the respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the ﬁrst respondent, the second respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and in the meantime the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, pending ﬁnalization of the appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. It is also made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. 8. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MENA KUMARI. __________________________________ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 18-9-2008. I s L. NB: Furnish CC by tomorrow. // BY ORDER // I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}