THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NOS. 15810, 15702, 15812, 15847 & 15874 OF 2010 DT.12.07.2010 Between: W.P.NO.15702 OF 2010: Jesus Mary Joseph Degree College for Women, Warangal ………….Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminostration, Hyderabad. And two others. ………..Respondents. W.P.NO.15810 OF 2010 M/S.Ahuja Engineering Services Pvt.Ltd., Secunderabad …………Petitioner Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad and two others. ………………….Respondents W.P.NO.15812 OF 2010 M/S.captive Power System ………..Petitioner Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad and two others ………….Respondents. W.P.NO.15847 of 2010: M/s. Ahuja Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad ……………Petitioner. Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad and two others. …………………Respondents. W.P.NO.15874 OF 2010: M/S.Devi Power Systems, Secunderabad. ……Petitioner Vs. The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) and two others…..Respondents O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax. At their request all these writ petitions are being takenup for disposal. The question that arise for consideration in all these writ petitions is the same and, as such, they are being disposed of by a common order. It would suffice for disposal of all these writ petitions if the facts stated in W.P.No.15810 of 2010 are taken note of. The petitioner herein is carrying on business in installation and commissioning of generators and executing other electrical works contracts. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent. The third respondent passed an assessment order for the year 2002-2003 (APGST) dt.27.02.2006 treating installation and commissioning of generators as works contracts, and assessed such transactions to tax under Section 5-F of the APGST Act. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 08.10.2009 proposing to revise the assessment order dated 27.02.2006 on the ground that the contract executed by the petitioner was in the nature of a contract for the sale of goods. Though the petitioner submitted a reply, the second respondent passed the order dated 11.02.2010 revising the assessment order dated 27.02.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the said appeals are still pending as on date. The petitioner approached the first respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax, and the first respondent by order dated 11.05.2010 rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petitions are filed. Sri B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the contract for supply, installation and commissioning of diesel generators is a job work involving a substantive element of labour; installation and commissioning is an integral part of the contract for supply of generators and is an indivisible works contract; the third respondent had considered all these aspects and had assessed the petitioner to tax treating the transactions as works contract and the second respondent had erred in treating these transactions as a contract for the sale of goods and not as a works contract. Sri A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax would submit that, since the petitioners have already preferred further appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, they are not entitled to parallelly question the order of the revisional authority in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as the substantive appeals filed by the petitioners are pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, we see no reason to examine the contentions raised in these writ petitions on merits. Ends of justice would be met if the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax on condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the tax due within a period of six weeks from today. The amount, if any, already paid by the petitioner towards the disputed tax shall be given credit to. All these writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J., Dt.12.07.2010 tjs