THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.18139 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner who is a VAT dealer on the rolls of the 2nd respondent, is a manufacturer of pesticides. The 1st respondent conducted an audit. In pursuance thereof, notices were issued proposing assessment for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 on the ground that the petitioner had availed excess input tax credit. After considering the objections, an order was passed on 26.4.2008. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent who dismissed the same on 18.4.2009. The matter, as of now, is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). Be it noted that, during the pendency of the appeal before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner’s plea for stay of collection of tax was refused against which the petitioner successfully filed W.P.No.23734 of 2008. However, by reason of dismissal of the appeal by the 3rd respondent, the stay granted by this Court became inoperative. Therefore the 3rd respondent insisted for payment of the disputed tax. In that context only the instant writ petition was filed assailing Rule 59 of A.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (A.P. VAT Rules) as ultra vires Section 2(4) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and for a direction to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the tax pending appeal before the STAT. This Court, while admitting the matter, granted interim stay. As noticed above, the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the disputed tax, and the appeal is pending before the STAT. In this back ground, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be proper to keep the matter pending. The counsel for the petitioner also points out that, in so far as the validity of Rule 59 of the A.P.VAT Rules is concerned, the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in Balaji Floor Mills v. C.T.O[1]. In that view of the matter, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the STAT to finally hear the appeal, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months. Pending the same, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 09.03.2011 asp [1] Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.855 of 2008 and batch dated 30.12.2010