IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10970 of 2008 Between: M/s.Singareni STeels (P) Ltd., A company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956), having its factory at Industrial Estate, Kothagudem, Khammam District, rep.by its Director & Authorised signatory N.Krishna Rao, S/o.Rama Kotaiah, aged 60 years, R/o.Kothagudem Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 The Commercial Tax officer, Kothagudem Khammam District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Government Memo No.8187/CT-II(2)/2008-2 dated 1.5.2008 without notice and the consequential notice dated 14.5.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the principles of natural justice and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to refrain from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the alleged dues pending the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10970 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) Petitioner is a manufacturer of steel. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, warangal, passed an order dated 21.03.2005, revising the order of assessment and holding the petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,06,784/-. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Apprehending that coercive steps would be taken to recover the disputed amount, petitioner made a representation to the Minister for Commercial Taxes on 08.11.2007 and thereafter on 08.02.2008, expressing its difficulty, if it is required to pay the disputed amount. An order, dated 13.02.2008, was passed by the Government, directing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, to issue necessary instructions to the authorities not to take coercive steps against the petitioner. This order was revoked vide letter dated 01.05.2008. The same is challenged by the petitioner. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Raji Reddy, learned Special Counsel for commercial taxes. Petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal, feeling aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal is not vested with the power to grant interim orders. Under the relevant provisions of law, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is vested with the power to consider the applications for stay. Petitioner did not avail that remedy, and instead, approached the Minister. Whatever may have been the circumstances under which the semblance of stay was granted on 13.02.2008, lack of jurisdiction appears to have been taken note of, and promptly, an order was passed on 01.05.2008 revoking the order dated 13.02.2008. When the initial exercise of power itself is doubtful, revocation of the order passed in exercise of such power cannot be found fault with. It is not as if the petitioner is without any remedy. Petitioner can approach the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, with a request to grant stay, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is represented that the petitioner did not approach the Joint Commissioner so far. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, with an application for stay, within a period of three weeks from today. For a period of three weeks, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) _____________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 21st May 2008. sh/vs