THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. No.12796 of 2009 26-08-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Class India Limited, rep. by Mg.Director Pradip Kumar Malik ...Petitioner vs. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad and two others. ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. 12796 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per RR,J) Against the revisional order passed by the 2nd respondent for the year 2003-04, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) Hyderabad and applied to the 1st respondent for stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.2,39,200/-. The 1st respondent by the order impugned dated 17-02-2009 rejected the stay application holding that the commodity “Harvester”, fell under item No.227 of the 1st Schedule under Entry “Modern Agricultural Implements” and was, therefore, liable to be taxed at 4% at the point of first sales w.e.f 01-01-2000. The first respondent held that G.O.Ms.No.539, dated 02.08.2000 granted exemption on certain animal driven implements and hand operated implements but not to Harvesters and, therefore, the revisional authority had rightly disallowed the exemption and had subjected the turnover of Rs.59,80,000/- to tax at 4%. The 1st respondent, while noting the contention of the petitioner- assessee that they had erroneously referred to G.O.Ms.No.539 dated 02-08-2000 instead of G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 31-01-2000, failed to address himself to the orders in G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 31-01-2000 whereunder in item 10 under the head “power operated implements” Paddy Harvesters are exempted from tax payable under the APGST Act,1957. Prima facie, in the light of the exemption granted in G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 31-01-2000, the petitioner has an arguable case in the appeal preferred before the STAT. They have also deposited 50% of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for preferring the said appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the orders of the 1st respondent dated 17-02-2009 is set aside and collection of the disputed tax of Rs.2,39,200/-, consequent upon the revisional order of the 2nd respondent, is stayed pending disposal of the appeal before the STAT. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 26th AUGUST, 2009. TSNR