IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH 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 : 9953 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Health Food Enterprises, Red Hills, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Partner M.B.A.Salam ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Agapura Circle, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.3,69,451/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the AP GST Act and consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax for the assessment year 2004-2005 (APGST) pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Vanaspathi, Cheese and Margarine and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2004-2005 under APGST Act by an order dated 10.10.2006, which was, however, revised by the second respondent and passed an order dated 22.6.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and also moved stay petition before the third respondent, which was summarily rejected by the third respondent, vide the order impugned in the 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 stay by the third respondent, the first respondent is contemplating coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 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 half of the disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate 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 Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 28, 2010 MAS