THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5037 OF 2009 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. Challenging the order of rejection of stay, dated 3.2.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of execution of works contracts. It is an assessee on the rolls of the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, during the assessment year 2004-05, it executed works contract for laying the roads. For the purpose of executing the said work, it purchased bitumen from other States. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice proposing to disallow the exemption claimed by the petitioner on the purchase of bitumen effected from other States on the ground that the purchase and supply of bitumen for use in the works contract in the State of Andhra Pradesh constitute a local/deemed sales within the State of A.P. The petitioner submitted its detailed reply to the said show cause notice. The 3rd respondent passed an order on 19.3.2008 disallowing exemption claimed by the petitioner in respect of the inter state purchases of bitumen. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent together with a stay application. The 2nd respondent through order dated 30.4.2008, rejected the stay petition. Feeling aggrieved, it again filed an application for stay before the 1st respondent seeking stay of collection of tax pending disposal of the appeal by the 2nd respondent. However, the 1st respondent passed an order on 3.2.2009 rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner for stay of collection of the disputed tax. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that even when the appeal filed against the order of the assessing authority is pending before the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent has rejected the stay application. We have gone through the record. We feel that ends of justice would have been met if stay was granted pending appeal, subject to deposit of certain amount. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of eight weeks from today. The deposit of amount shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the appeal. If any amount has already been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be given credit to. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 13th March, 2009 _________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Note: Furnish c.c. in 3 days. B/o pnb