IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.24514 OF 2009 Dt.22.1.2010 Between: M/s. Iris Infra Services (P) Ltd., Plot No.30; HIG-A; Dr. A.S. Rao Nagar ECIL Post, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director Kodali Adiseshu … Petitioner And The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division V Floor, CCT Complex, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan Nampally, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. S.R.R. Viswanath Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A. V. Krishna Koundinya Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.24514 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioner, a registered dealer under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act)’, on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Keesara Circle, questions the order passed by first respondent in Appeal No.S/21/2008-2009-VAT, dt.30.9.2009, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, against the order of the second respondent levying tax of Rs.10,09,330/-. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of transmission towers and in execution of works and service contracts. On the basis of an audit conducted on the petitioner company on 28.5.2008 a best judgment assessment was made by the second respondent for the assessment year 2005-2006 and the petitioner was assessed to tax of Rs.10,09,330/- treating the entire turnover of Rs.2,21,52,839/- relating to works contracts in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Orissa as relating to sales of transmission towers in Andhra Pradesh. Tax at 4% was levied on the said turnover and the tax due was determined as Rs.8,61,114/-. The turnover of Rs.16,93,903/-, which the petitioner claimed to relate to pure service contracts, was treated as works contracts executed in Andhra Pradesh and tax was levied thereupon at 12.5% under Section 4(7) of the Act and the tax due was determined as Rs.1,48,216/-. The total tax which the petitioner was held liable to pay was determined as Rs.10,09,330/- . Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent who, by order dt.12.11.2008, rejected the stay application. Questioning the order rejecting stay the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.25522 of 2008 before this Court and, by order dt.24.11.2008, this Court granted stay pending appeal subject to the condition that the petitioner deposited half the disputed tax within a period of six weeks. The petitioner asserts to have complied with the condition and to have deposited 50% of the disputed tax. Thereafter the first respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2009. Dr. S.R.R. Viswanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend before this Court that the second respondent had treated the turnover relating to the sales effected at the branches of the petitioner in Karnataka and Orissa for Rs.55,19,902/- and Rs.26,45,005/- as sales within the State of Andhra Pradesh; pure services rendered by the petitioner, as stipulated in the agreement for Rs.9,51,852/-, in Andhra Pradesh, Rs.4,77,162/- in Karnataka, and Rs.15,69,625/- in Orissa were also treated as sales; the petitioner had paid service tax on the turnover relating to the services rendered by them; against the impugned order dt.30.9.2009 the petitioner had filed an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad; the said appeal is pending as on date; since there is a specific bar under the Act against stay being granted either by the Tribunal or by any other authority, pending disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the petitioner has no other remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the aforestated contentions urged by the petitioner cannot be said to be without merit we do not consider it appropriate to adjudicate thereupon since the substantive appeal is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Ends of justice would be met if the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax from the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 50% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from today. Tax, if any, already paid by the petitioner towards the disputed tax shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 22.1.2010 bnr