THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE Ms JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2991 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not granting stay of collection of disputed tax for the year 2003-04 as arbitrary, illegal unjust and, consequently, to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,71,197/- for the year 2003-04, pending disposal of appeal. The petitioner - M/s Sri Radhakrishna Transport, Rajahmundry - is engaged in the business of transportation of goods. In the course of business, it entered into a transport contract with M/s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation of India (ONGC), for transportation of Crude Oil and High Speed Diesel Oil (HSDO) from the stock point to various places as per their requirement. For the said purpose, the petitioner pressed into service oil tankers in which oil would be transported. The transportation charges are payable as per the actual quantity of oil and the distance to which the said oil is transported. The entire maintenance of the tankers and its crew is the responsibility of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the transport charges are not taxable under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (“for short the Act”) and that the petitioner is not a dealer carrying on business under the Act; as such, it does not require any registration under the provisions of the Act. It is its further case that the petitioner has not registered itself as a dealer under the Act and did not file any returns under the Act. While so, the 1st respondent passed an assessment order dated 25.07.2007 for the year 2003-04 levying a tax of Rs.9,52,823/- on the transportation charges of Crude Oil, realized by the petitioner from the ONGC. For the same year, the 1st respondent has passed another order on the very same day levying a tax of Rs.1,71,197/- on the transportation charges of HSD oil belonging to ONGC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeals before the 3rd respondent and the same are pending. It is the further case of the petitioner that separate applications seeking stay of collection of disputed tax were also filed pending disposal of appeals. The 3rd respondent by order dated 11.9.2007 dismissed the stay application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Revision before the 2nd respondent seeking stay of collection of disputed tax pending appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent by order dated 29.1.2008 dismissed the stay application observing that the assessing authority examined the issue and relying upon the reported decisions in finalizing the assessment, rejected stay application and, therefore, there are no valid grounds to grant stay. It is stated that in the meantime, the 1st respondent issued garnishee notice under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to the ONGC for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, the writ petition. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents and in view of the fact that the Appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the 3rd respondent, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be adequately met if stay is granted pending Appeal subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting stay of recovery of the disputed tax pending Appeal before the 3rd respondent subject to the petitioner depositing one fourth of the disputed tax, after giving credit to the amounts already paid, within a period of six weeks from today. However, in the event of failure to deposit one fourth of the disputed tax within the time stipulated above, the impugned order shall stand operative. It is made clear that the amount deposited in compliance with this order shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the Appeal. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ______________ G. ROHINI, J 14th February, 2007. Kgr THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE Ms JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2991 of 2009 Between: M/s Sri Radhakrishna Transport, Door No.69-30-2, Gandhipuram, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, represented by its Managing Partner – M. Vijay Kumar. .. Petitioner. And The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (L.T.U. & Int.) Kakinada, and others. .. Respondents.