IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12976 of 2008 Between: M/s. Cal-on-Instrument, Uppal, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner, Sri. A.Suresh Babu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Nacharam Circle, Secunderabad. 2 Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 3 Joint Commissioner (CT) (L), Andra Pradesh, Hyderabad .....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 issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 16,21,040/- for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) arising in pursuance of the assessment order passed by the respondent dated 23.02.2008 read with stay rejection order passed by the third respondent in CCT's Ref. No. LIII (4)/415/2008, dated 23.05.2008 or to pass such other suitable orders in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division Bench of this Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN * * * ORAL ORDER : { Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari } Seeking a writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.15,21,040-00 for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) arising out of the assessment order passed by the first respondent dated 23-2-2008 read with stay rejection order passed by the third respondent in CCT’s Ref.No. LIII (4)/415/2008 dated 23-5-2008 and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Electronic Balances and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. The first respondent through his proceedings dated 23-2-2008 made final assessment for the years 2004- 05 under the APGST Act on a gross and net turnover of Rs.2,20,08,143/- and Rs.2,08,02,911/- respectively and subjected the net turnover to tax @ 8%, 12% amounting to Rs.20,47,146/-. The petitioner had paid tax amounting to Rs.4,02,746/- of the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST). Against the said order passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent along with stay petition seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.16,21,040/- pending disposal of the appeal. The appellate authority, who is the second respondent herein by his proceedings dated 24-4-2008 passed in AO.No.S/04/2008-09, rejected the stay petition. Against the said stay rejection order, the petitioner filed revision petition before the third respondent seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.16,21,040/- . The third respondent by his proceedings in CCT’s Ref.No. LIII (4)/415/2008, dated 23-5-2008, rejected the stay petition. Against the said stay rejection order the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, the second respondent is contemplating to take 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 due 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 tax, 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. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 23-6-2008. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies