IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21851 of 2008 Between: M/s.NAC Infrastrucutre Equipment Ltd., NAC Campus Izzat Nagar,Kondapur, Cyberabad,Hyderabad, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Rama Vivekananda Varanasi ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT)-III, Office of Joint Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Commercial Tax officer, Madhapur circle hyderabad Rural Divison, Gagan Vihar,Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Appellate Deputy Commisisoner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad (Rural), Division, Commercial Tax Building, Nampally,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 a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus setting aside the impugned order of the third respondent passed in Appeal No.R/43/2008-09 dated 26.9.2008 for the tax period April 2006 to March 2007 and further restraining the respondents from recovering the total disputed tax of Rs.43,33,306/- in pursuance of the order of the ﬁrst respondent in Form No.VAT 305 dated 17.7.2008 for the tax period April 2006 to March 2007 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN 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 26.09.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.43,33,306/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.VA.T. Act and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the tax period from April, 2006 to March, 2007 pending appeal before the third respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Company engaged in making available the necessary resources and related machinery for ushering growth in the infrastructure ﬁeld in Andhra Pradesh and neighbouring States. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent herein. While so, the petitioner company was inspected by the oﬃcials of the ﬁrst respondent and obtained information relating to the amounts received by the petitioner for making such equipment available to its customers and based on the said information, issued a notice dated 18.6.2008 in Form VAT 305A proposing to assess to tax the charges received for making the equipment available on hourly basis, for the tax period from April, 2006 to March, 2007. Though the petitioner has ﬁled detailed objections to the said proposal, the ﬁrst respondent vide order dated 17.7.2008 determined the turnover of Rs.3,46,66,449/- and determined the tax at Rs.43,33,306/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the third respondent along with a stay petition, which was, however, rejected by the third respondent by order dated 26.09.2008. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of the stay petition by the third respondent, the second respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery thereof. 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 balance tax amount, 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 September 30, 2008 Copy in a week //BO// MAS