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 : 400 of 2010 Between: M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, (Industrial Systems Group Bangalore) at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Rep. By its AGM, Sri N. Santhanam ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Ramgiri, Nalgonda and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing notice in RC. No. G.I.No.7870/2002-B APGST dated 9.2.2010 demanding balance amount of Rs.41,68,894/- for the assessment year 2002-2003 within three days as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and to consequently grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.75,87,622/- pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner company is a major undertaking of Government of India engaged in manufacture of heavy electrical equipment and erecting power plants and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. The petitioner entered into an agreement with APTRANSO for manufacture, supply, erection, testing and commissioning of 11KV 600 KVAR pole mounted shunt capacitors at various places in Nalgonda District and, as such, goods moved from place to place. While so, on filing of the returns by the petitioner for the assessment year 2002- 2003 under APGST Act claiming exemption on the turnover of the goods being inter-State sale, the plea was rejected by the first respondent levying tax holding that there are two sales one inter-State sale and the other deemed sale within the State as local sale. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent allowed the appeal remanding the matter to the first respondent. The first respondent once again passed a consequential order dated 26.12.2008 observing that the petitioner did not file any documentary evidence, levying sales tax once again on the disputed turnover. Therefore, since the consequential order is not in conformity with the remand direction, the petitioner once again filed an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent dismissed the appeal holding that there are two sales. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. While the appeal was pending, the first respondent has issued impugned notice demanding payment of entire balance of Rs.41,68,894/-. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issuance of impugned notice demanding payment of the entire tax, pending appeal, before the Appellate Tribunal, is bad. It is further submitted that 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 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 CC in two days //BO// MAS