IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10460 OF 2010 Between: M/s. Neelam Traders, Plot No. 315, Kamalapuri Nagar Colony, Hyderebad, Rep. Proprietor Mr. Jitender Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.3,45,637/- demanded by the third respondent pursuant to the dismissal of appeal No.P/150/2007-08 dated 11.2.2010 by the second respondent for the assessment year 1997-98 (APGST) pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Kirana and General merchant and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein and consequent upon the reorganisation of the circles, presently, the third respondent is the assessing authority for the petitioner. The first respondent had completed the assessment for the year 1997-1998 under APGST Act by an order dated 25.10.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed by an order dated 11.02.2010. Before the petitioner could file an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and a stay petition before the appropriate authority, the third respondent, who is presently the assessing authority for the petitioner, has issued notice dated 8.03.2010 requiring it to deposit the disputed tax within three days. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal assailing the dismissal of appeal by the second respondent and also filed this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent without adverting to the same has dismissed the appeal and before an appeal could be filed before the Appellate Tribunal and stay is sought from an appropriate authority, the issuance of notice by the third respondent seeking paying within three days, is illegal. 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 disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order within a period of six weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. 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. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 30, 2010 MAS