THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16040 OF 2009 Dt.7.8.2009 Between: M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Secretary, Commercial Tax Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16040 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare order dated 8.7.2009 passed by respondent No.5 in TMP No.194/2009 in T.A.No.276/2009 as illegal. 2. The petitioner is a contractor, who has undertaken the work awarded by the erstwhile electricity board. Respondent No.2, by order dated 27.12.2005, assessed the tax due for the year 2002-03 at Rs.1,16,15,140/-, under Rule 6 (3)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Questioning the said assessment order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3. The petitioner’s plea that assessment should have been made under Rule 6 (3)(i) of the Rules was accepted by respondent No.3 and accordingly the petitioner’s appeal was allowed by order dated 25.11.2006. The said order was, however, suo motu revised by respondent No.4 by order dated 13.2.2009 whereby respondent No.4 restored the original assessment made by respondent No.2. The petitioner questioned the said order of respondent No.4 before respondent No.5. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application for stay, which was rejected by the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. During the course of hearing, Shri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 has not properly considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the assessing authority and also respondent No.4 committed serious error in making assessment under Rule 6 (3)(ii) instead of under Rule 6 (3)(i) of the Rules. He further submitted that the petitioner already deposited 25% of the disputed tax as a pre-condition for filing appeal. 4. Since the appeal is pending before respondent No.5, we refrain from expressing our opinion on merits because, any such expression of opinion may ultimately affect the outcome of the appeal. However, in our considered view, interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to pay another 25% of the disputed tax to make it 50% of the total tax due to be deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is given four weeks’ time to make the said deposit. The deposit of money by the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the appeal pending before respondent No.5. Till disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents, subject to the petitioner complying with the aforesaid condition. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 07, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J bnr