THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16337 OF 2006 Date:21.03.2011 Between: M/s.Sri Sai Lakshmi Constructions and Company, 1st Floor, Sarwani Towers, Vijayawada, Krishna District, rep., by its Managing Partner Mr.Ch.Vittal .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Benz Circle, Vijayawada and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.16337 OF 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, a works contractor, is a dealer registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act, for brevity) on the rolls of the first respondent. For the assessment year 2002- 2003, the assessing authority passed an assessment order against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 15.07.2004. The same was remanded by the second respondent observing that the assessing officer has to enchance the demand. Before doing so, a notice was not issued. The appellate authority had also proceeded as if the notice of hearing dated 16.02.2004 was issued. Be that as it may, the petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). As a precondition, he also deposited 50% of the disputed tax. Pending the appeal before the STAT, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the third respondent under Section 21(b) of the Act. The same having been rejected, the petitioner is before this Court. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes. There is no dispute that the appeal before the STAT is still pending. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has already deposited 50% of the disputed tax. As far as merits of the case are concerned, prima facie, the petitioner has made out a case that the second respondent, while ordering enhancement of the demand, failed to issue notice as stipulated under Section 19 of the Act. On this limited ground, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. As there is already an order of stay granted by this Court on 04.08.2006, the said order shall continue till the disposal of the matter before the STAT. We request the STAT to dispose of the tax appeal filed by the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 21.03.2011 KH