IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH 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 : 6928 of 2010 Between: M/s. Chemsol Labs. Private Limited, Flat No. 202, Jamuna Thertha Apartments, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Managing Director Mr.V.Vamsi Krishna ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Sanath Nagar 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 11.3.2010 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.14,62,166/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act and consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 pending appeal before the third respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of trading pharmaceuticals and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The petitioner submitted monthly returns paying the applicable taxes. But the second respondent has passed orders dated 28.12.2009 in Form VAT 305 rejecting the claim of exemption, which resulted in additional demand of Rs.14,62,166/-. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent and also sought stay of recovery of the disputed tax, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.3.2010, which was assailed by the petitioner before the fourth respondent in revision. Pending appeal before the third respondent and revision before the fourth respondent, the first respondent has issued garnishee notice dated 20.3.2010, which was however, revoked by order dated 23.3.2010, but insisting for payment of the disputed tax amount. Hence, 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 third respondent. 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 March 26, 2010` MAS