IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH 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 : 4 9 8 7 of 2010 Between: M/s. Varun Agencies, Troop Bazaar, Hyderabad, Represented by its Proprietor: Sri Vikash Agarwal. ..... PETITIONER V/s. The Commercial Tax Officer, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad & 3-Ors. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Bhaskarreddy Vemireddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya Spl. S.C. for C.T. The Division Bench made the following Order : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4987 of 2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking mandamus to declare the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent dated 18-1-2010 in CCT’s Ref.No. LV (1)/569/2009 in rejecting the revision petition as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same and restrain the first respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.5,41,773-00 out of the total disputed tax of Rs.10,73,311/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 under the AP Vat Act, 2005 in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 04-2-2010 issued by the first respondent, pending disposal of the appeal before the third respondent, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm carrying on business in purchase and sale of Sanitary goods, water tanks, GI pipes, CP fittings etc., and it is a registered dealer under the provisions of AP VAT Act, 2005 and CST Act, 1956 and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent herein. It is stated that the first respondent passed orders on 30-12-2008 raising a demand of Rs.10,76,311/- on the ground that there is variation of stocks of inspection by the second respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal and stay application before the third respondent raising various legal contentions. Thereupon, the third respondent without considering the contentions raised and catena of judgments relied upon by the petitioner, rejected the stay application through proceedings dated 17-12-2009 by a cryptic order. The third respondent rejected the stay, though the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent also rejected the revision petition vide impugned orders dated 18-1-2010 on untenable grounds. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent grossly erred in confirming the demand relying on the report alleged to have been sent by the second respondent to the effect that there are variations in stocks on the proposed suppression ignoring the fact that the way the second respondent conducted inventory cannot be the basis for arriving the suppressions since the second respondent did not conduct inventory in a proper manner and has arrived the suppression on mere presumptions and surmises without taking proper inventory of the goods. Further the petitioner had already paid 50% of the disputed tax though the petitioner is not liable for any tax on the turnover in dis0pute and as the petitioner is hard pressed for funds and is not in a position to pay any portion of the balance disputed tax, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner for grant of stay of recovery of balance disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the third respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 5. 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 50% of the disputed tax, as per the impugned order in addition to the amount already paid, preferably within a period of four weeks from today i.e., 05-03- 2010 and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, pending finalisation of the appeal by the third respondent. It is made clear that the amount paid, if any, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. 6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao March 5, 2010. I s L NB: Furnish CC. in two days. B/o. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOORTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4987 OF 2010 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 1 0 4 Date: 05-03-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L