IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21433 of 2008 Between: M/s. Pioma Industries, 3-4-376/17, Basant Colony, Lingampally, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027, Rep. by its Assistant Regional Commercial Manager, Mr.N.Srinivasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tarnaka Circle, Secunderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 2nd respondent dated 6.8.2008 refusing to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.7,87,330/- for the assessment year 2005-06 under the APVAT Act, pending disposal of the appeal as illegal, arbitrary, unjustiﬁed and contrary to law and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of disputed tax of Rs.7,87,330/- pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd Respondent for the assessment year 2005-06 under the APVAT Act, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: KUM.K.UMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 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 6.08.2008 passed by the second respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.7,87,330/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.V.A.T. Act, 2005 and consequently direct the respondent not to collect the disputed tax for the assessment year 2005-06, pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner ﬁrm is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Oﬃcer, Mahankali Street, Secunderabad, and is C & F Agent for the product rasna soft drink concentrates. The ﬁrst respondent conducted tax audit of the petitioner and issued assessment notice dated 4.4.2008 in Form VAT 305A proposing to determine the stock transfer turnover to an extent of Rs.63,96,669/- as taxable and called for objections, which the petitioner could not ﬁle within time. Therefore, the ﬁrst respondent conﬁrmed the levy by order dated 2.5.2008, raising a demand of Rs.7,87,330/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also ﬁled a petition seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax, but the second respondent, however, refused to grant stay by order dated 6.8.2008. Since the second respondent has refused to grant stay by order dated 6.8.2008, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent did not grant stay and, therefore, pursuant to the dismissal of the stay petition, the petitioner apprehends that that respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax amount. 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 demanded tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance tax amount, pending ﬁnalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. 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 Ramesh Ranganathan September 30, 2008 Copy in a week //BO// MAS