THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21137 OF 2009 Dated:06.04.2011 Between: M/s.TATA Projects Limited, “Mithona Towers”-I, 1-7-80 to 87, Opp: Wesley Co-education Junior College, Prenderghat Road, Near Paradise Circle, Secunderabad, Represented by its General Manager And Head of Accounts Mr.K.S.Krishnan .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21137 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The petitioner questions the order of the third respondent dated 17.02.2009 rejecting his application for stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.43,77,066/- for the assessment year 2002-2003 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). In the order under challenge in this writ petition, the third respondent observed that the works contract receipts were assessed pertaining to the works executed for the year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003; the works contract was completed by August, 2002; the total contract receipts disclosed for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 were only Rs.25,90,207/-; the difference of turnover in the works contract value was Rs.22,75,194/- which was not reported and not assessed; this turnover should be added to the gross turnover and net turnover and assessed to tax at 8% for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 under Section 5F of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity); certain inputs were supplied by the contractee to the contractor on which the petitioner was claiming a tax liability of 8% under all kinds of electrical goods; the petitioner had sold used conductors which were in the nature of scrap and hence fall under 7th Schedule to the Act and liable to tax at 12%; and therefore the turnover pertaining to the sale of used conductors were proposed to tax at 12% instead of 8% as was assessed in the assessment orders passed. Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that while the tax as assessed originally was around Rs.35,00,000/-, in the rectification order the assessing authority had treated the tax payable as Rs.43,77,066/-. This aspect has not been considered by the third respondent while adjudicating the stay application filed by the petitioner, and as such the order suffers from infirmity which necessitates its being quashed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While the submission of the learned counsel cannot be said to be without merit, we however see no reason to examine this contention as a substantive appeal is pending adjudication before the STAT. Ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of such amount, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal by the STAT. With the above observations, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 06.04.2011 KH