IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, , THE TWENTYIETH DAY OF APRIL 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 : 8 7 5 3 of 2010 Between: M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry East Godavari district, Represented by its Sr.Fin.& Accts.Officer, Sri KSN Murthy ..... PETITIONER V/s. The Asst.Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada, East Godavari district & 2-Ors. .....RESPONDENTS The Division Bench made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8 7 5 3 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari} Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23-3- 2010 passed in CCT’s Ref.No.LV(3)/92 by the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and consequently to restrain the first respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.5,11,21,156-00 for the period from April 2007 to March 2009 pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent, Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is a Government of India Company engaged in the business of Oil Exploration and it is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent under the provisions of A.P. General Sales Tax, 1957. On 15-12-2009 the first respondent assessed the petitioner company on various issues and determined the tax liability of Rs.5,11,21,156-00 . It is stated that the first respondent has assessed the difference in turnovers between excise returns and VAT returns, even though the difference amount has not been realized by the petitioner. It is stated that an input tax credit claimed to an exstent of Rs.1.94 crores has been disallowed. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appealbefore the second respondent after paying 12.5 % disputed tax in a sum of Rs.63,90,145/- and an application was filed seeking stay and the same was posted to 05-2-2010. By order dated 09-2-2010 the second respondent refused to grant stay without assigning any reason. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 09-2-2010 passed by the second respondent refusing to grant stay, the petitioner preferred a revision before the third respondent seeking stay of collection of balance amount of Rs.4.47 crores. But the third respondent summarily rejected the stay by order dated 23-3-2010 on the ground that a copy of the assessment order dated 15-12-2009 was not filedbefore him so as to verify the contentions raised by the petitioner vis-à-vis the assessment order. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second and third respondents, i.e., the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) and also the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal but both of them have refused to grant stay vide the orders impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the second and third respondents, the first is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 8. 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 six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order but however, 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. 8. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. However, in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao 20-04-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOORTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8 7 5 3 OF 2010 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 9 0 Date: 20-04-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L