IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH 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 : 23100 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sathi Ramakrishna Reddy Ubalanka Ravualapalem Mandal, East Godavari District, Rep. By its Managing Partner Mr. Sathi Rama Krishna Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer Mandapeta, East Godavari District and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.2,07,568/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and consequently direct the first respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.1,55,677/- for the assessment year 2002-2003 pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner company is a partnership firm engaged in the execution of works contracts and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent has completed the assessment for the year 2002-2003 by order dated 5.3.2004 granting certain exemptions, which was however, revised by the second respondent withdrawing the exemptions granted by the first respondent and passed an order dated 27.12.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in TA No. 206 of 2006 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 or on before 31.03.2010 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 March 4, 2010 MAS