IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH 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 : 22436 of 2009 Between: M/s. LCL – IJM II – Interiors (P) Ltd., 12th Square Building, B-1, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34, Rep. By its Director Sri D. Sreenivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Addl. Commissioner (CT) Legal, 2nd Floor, CT Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 06.10.2009 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,71,97,232/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APVAT Act, 2005 and consequently direct the respondent not to collect the disputed tax for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.7.2007, pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner company is a registered dealer on the rolls of the fourth respondent herein and it deals in execution of works contracts. The third respondent has completed the assessment for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.7.2007 after allowing the exemptions on 29.1.2008 and the second respondent, on revision, withdrew the exemptions granted by the third respondent by order dated 21.1.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and also moved stay petition, which was summarily rejected by the first respondent, vide the order dated 21.4.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred WP No.8891 of 2009 and this court by order dated 28.4.2009 disposed of the same directing the first respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders according to law. The first respondent after hearing passed the order impugned. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, coercive steps are being contemplated for recovery of the disputed tax. 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 tax amount due, as per the impugned order or on before 31.03.2010 and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the 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 March 2, 2010 Copy by tomorrow //BO// MAS