IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND 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 : 3813 of 2009 Between: M/s. Saraiwwalaa Agrr. Refineries Limited, Plot No. 268, Srikrupa Market, Mababoob Mansion, Malakpet, Hyderabad – 36, Rep.by its Managing Director Mr.Ravinder Kumar Gupta ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Special Commodities Circle, Saroornagar, 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 13.2.2009 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.32,49,889/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and to consequently direct the respondents not to take coercive steps to collect the disputed tax pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of edible oils and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein under APVAT Act, CST Act and APGST Act. The first respondent has completed the assessment for the years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 by order dated 9.10.2006, 3.2.2007 and 14.12.2007 respectively granting certain exemptions, but the second respondent proposing to revise the above assessment orders issued notice dated 27.9.2008 and accordingly passed an order dated 2.12.2008 confirming the proposed levy of tax, without considering the detailed objections submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred separate appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and also moved stay petitions before the third respondent, who summarily rejected the same, vide the order impugned in this 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, coercive steps are being contemplated for recovery of the disputed tax by the respondents. 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 four 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 March 22, 2010 MAS