THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.116 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in TMP No.383 of 2009 in T.A. No.466 of 2009 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The first respondent proposed to levy penalty on the petitioner and, thereafter, by order dated 16.10.2004 confirmed the order of penalty. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent who allowed the appeal by order dated 31.10.2005. The 4th respondent revised the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and, by his order dated 31.10.2008, affirmed the order of the 1st respondent-assessing authority, aggrieved by which the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the STAT. By the order impugned in this Writ Petition, the STAT directed stay of recovery of penalty on condition that the petitioner deposited 50% thereof within five weeks. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition. Sri T. Ramesh Babu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the order of the 4th respondent is based on the circular of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes dated 03.01.2008 which was suspended by this Court, and has subsequently been kept in abeyance; the goods mentioned in Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act are not relatable to a works contract; and, as such, the goods which the petitioner’s use, for the purposes of works contracts, are entitled for concessional rate of tax on production of C-Forms. The order of the revisional authority makes no reference to the circular of the Commissioner dated 03.01.2008. We are unable, therefore, to agree with Sri T. Ramesh Babu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the order of the 4th respondent was at the dictates of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. We refrain from expressing any opinion with regards the applicability or otherwise of Section 8(3)(b) of the Act in as much as the substantive appeal filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication before the STAT. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct that, pending disposal of the appeal before the STAT, the respondents shall not take coercive steps to recover the disputed penalty on condition that the petitioner deposits 1/3rd of the said amount within a period of six weeks from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ V.V.S.RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 09.03.2011 MRKR