IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15455 of 2009 Between: M/s. Motorola India Private Limited, 1-4-879/75A Gandhinagar, Hyderabad-500080, rep.by its Senior Specialist Finance, Mr.Vivek Katoch ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT),UMU-II, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhinagar Circle, Hyderabad. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 4 The Joint commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to set aside the notice of the 2nd respondent dated 27.7.2009 for recovery of the disputed VAT arrears for the years 2006-07 & 2007-08 during pendency of the stay applications before the 4th respondent as illegal arbitrary, and unjustified and restrain him from taking any further coercive steps for recovery of the VAT arrears including any notice under section 29 of the APVAT Act Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S. Dwarakanath Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned standing counsel Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya appearing for the respondents. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The grievance which the petitioner has ventilated in this petition is with regard to taking coercive action by the respondent authorities for recovery of the amount of tax in spite of the fact that the revision application for stay filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 4 is still pending. 3. Upon hearing the learned advocates, we find that it is not in dispute that the stay application filed by the petitioner had been rejected by respondent No.3. Against the order of rejection of the stay application, the petitioner filed a revision application before respondent No.4. The said revision application is still pending before respondent No.4 and during the pendency of the said revision application, the respondent authorities are trying to take coercive action for recovery of the amount of tax. 4. Looking to the facts of the case, we direct that till the revision application, which is pending before respondent No.4 is finally disposed of and the order therein is communicated to the petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount of tax. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30th July, 2009 ks Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/O ks