IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16907 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Lakshmi Motors, 16-11-741/B/B, Moosaram Bagh, Dilsukh Nagar Hyderabad, Rep. by its General Manager, Mr.P.Subhash Chandra Bose. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Charminar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of A.P., 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs. 10,14,514/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the APGST Act through the impugned orders in CCT's Ref.No. LIII(2)/512/2008 Dt. 4- 7-08 as illegal, arbitrary and high handed and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for the recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.7,48,620/- from out of the total disputed tax of Rs. 10,14,514/- for the assessment year 2004-05 under the APGST Act pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 04.07.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay collection of the disputed tax of Rs.7,48,620/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2004-05, pending appeal before the Second Respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in purchase of two wheeler automobiles and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent. The first respondent has finalised the assessment by order, dated 29.03.2008, levying tax on the turnover of permanent and temporary registration charges and also levied turnover tax under Sec. 5A of the APGST Act on the second sale of motor vehicles. The petitioner herein challenged the said order by way of appeal before the second respondent and also moved stay application, who, by order dated 10.6.2006, has dismissed the stay application. Assailing the same, the petitioner herein filed revision petition before the third respondent, who also dismissed the same by the order impugned herein. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second and third respondents, they have refused to grant stay. It is also submitted that pursuant to the dismissal of the stay application by the third respondent, vide the order impugned herein, the first respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax and if the disputed tax amount is recovered, the very purpose of filing the appeal will be defeated. 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 demanded tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. 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 Ramesh Ranganathan August 5, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}