IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19233 of 2008 Between: M/s.Gammon India Limited, Palvancha,Khammam District AP, rep.by its Manager (Indirect Taxation),Mr.R.Thomas ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT),Int .& LTU, Warangal Divison, Warangal 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal Division Warangal 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, O/o.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax through the impugned notices dated 21.8.2008 and dated 30.8.2008 and contemplating to coercive steps even during the pendency of the stay application before the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and high handed and contrary to the judgment of the Hon`ble court in M/s.ANAB E SHAHI WINES case and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.8,90,907/- for the assessment year 2001-02 under the APGST Act pending appeal before the Hon`ble Sales TAx Appellate Tribunal and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.19233 of 2008 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. The present writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed tax through the impugned notices dated 21.8.2008 and 30.8.2008 and in contemplating to take coercive steps even during the pendency of the stay application before the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same. It also seeks a consequential direction to restrain the ﬁrst respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs. 8,90,907/- for the assessment year 2001-2002, pending disposal of the appeal filed by it before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, which is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act is a registered dealer under the A.P.G.S.T. and C.S.T. Acts and is engaged in the business of works contracts. It is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent herein. While so, the ﬁrst respondent passed an assessment order on 28.4.2004 determining the gross and net turnovers at Rs. 21,84,02,430/- and Rs. 11,06,47,800/-. However, the 1st respondent through order dated 15.7.2004, has passed revised assessment orders determining the net turnover as Rs. 8,94,83,280/- while exempting turn over of Rs.12,89,19,150/-. While so, the 2nd respondent, with a view to revise the said assessment order on the ground that the Additional Commissioner has not mentioned anything as to why he was granting the exemption on the turnovers, issued notice dated 24.8.2007 to the petitioner calling upon it to ﬁle its objections. The revisional authority, having gone through the objections ﬁled by the petitioner, through order dated 28.2.2008, has conﬁrmed the proposed revision. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It also ﬁled an application seeking stay of recovery of the disputed demand of Rs. 8,90,907/- before the 3rd respondent. But, the 3rd respondent, has heard the application and reserved it for orders. While so, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notices 21.8.2008 and 30.8.2008 demanding payment of the disputed tax and is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, the present writ petition. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal ﬁled the petitioner against the order of the 2nd respondent is pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. He further contended that the application ﬁled by the petitioner seeking stay of the impugned proceedings is pending also before the 3rd respondent and in those circumstances, the 1st respondent was not justiﬁed in issuing the impugned demand notices dated 21.8.2008 and 30.8.2008. 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 Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six 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: 6th September, 2008 __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Note: Furnish c.c. in three days B/o pnb