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 : 21445 of 2008 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ANANDAM 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 mandamus declaring action of the respondents in demanding to pay the tax pending stay petition before the ﬁrst respondent and Appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, assailing the orders of the third respondent passed in exercise of the revisional powers under Sec. 20(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the said Act and consequently to direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax of Rs.47,27,863/- for the assessment year 2000-01, pending appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner company is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent and is engaged in the business of execution of works contract. The petitioner company was assessed by the second respondent by order dated 3.3.2004 levying tax of Rs.40,27,411/- granting exemption on a turnover of Rs.19,19,39,320/- and the petitioner paid the said amount. Thereafter, the third respondent by order dated 26.6.2006 in exercise of powers under Section 20(2) of the Act, has revised the assessment, which was assailed by the petitioner in WP No. 22930 of 2006 and this court allowed the same directing the respondents to aﬀord an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner ﬁled its objections to the said assessment, but the third respondent, without considering the same, has passed fresh orders dated 24.11.2006, rejecting the objections ﬁled by the petitioner and raised demand of Rs.87,55,274/- vide order dated 18.6.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in TA No. 376 of 2008. The petitioner also ﬁled a petition seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax before the ﬁrst respondent, which is still pending. Since no orders are passed on the stay application, 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 ﬁrst respondent, the ﬁrst respondent did not pass any orders and, therefore, 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