IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 7390 OF 2010 Between: M/s. WEP Peripherals Limited, Block H-1, 4th Floor, Surya Towers, SD Road, Secunderabad, Rep.by its Senior Accounts Executive Sri Y.Ashok ..... PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner (CT)(Legal) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taes, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to continue the order passed by this court in WP No. 5860 of 2008 pending disposal of appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of computer peripherals, electronic typewriters, dot matrix printers and U.P.S. and is a registered dealer on the rolls of second respondent under APGST Act. The petitioner got sale tax deferment for the period from 26.12.1996 to 25.12.2010 and thus assessments have been completed upto 2003-2004 without any tax dues. Upon application of the petitioner, the Government has accorded permission to repay the availed deferment with 6.5% rebate by order dated 24.12.2007 and the petitioner paid all the taxes. Subsequently, the third respondent has levied an interest of Rs.13,45,704/- on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled for deferment on UPS for the period from 2002-03 to 2004-05, even though the second respondent had accepted the returns on the turnovers. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent in Appeal No.BV/77/2007-2008. The petitioner also filed WP No. 5860 of 2008 against the rejection of stay and pursuant to the stay granted by this court, the petitioner paid 25% of the amount. While so, the first respondent has rejected the appeal by order dated 6.2.2010. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is pending. Hence, this writ petition is filed praying to extend the stay granted in W.P. No. 5860 of 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the demand of the second respondent to pay the demanded amount else threatening to resort to take steps under Sec. 29 of the APVAT Act for recovery of the same, is illegal. We have gone through the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if stay is granted subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the interest amount. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the interest amount within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed amount of interest. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 06, 2010 MAS