IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15181 of 2008 Between: M/s. Hinduatan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt., Ltd., 44-69, Moulali, Hyderabad, rep. by its Finance Manager Basant Modani. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant commissioner (CT) LTU, Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Addl. Commissioner (CT) Legal, 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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction restraining the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the total disputed tax of Rs.6,15,59,834/- for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) till the disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondents: SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15181 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the total disputed tax of Rs.6,15,59,834/- for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) till the disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and paid 50% of the disputed tax. While so, on 28.6.2008, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal. Having aggrieved by the same, an appeal has been preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. But, the 1st respondent is trying to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, an appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal and the same is pending and that the petitioner has already 50% of the disputed tax and at this juncture, if the relief as to the stay of the collection of the disputed tax is not entertained and if the recovery of the disputed tax in question is effected during the pendency of the appeal the very purpose of filing the said appeal, which is a statutory remedy that is available to the aggrieved party, would be defeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein stay can be granted, but subject to imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, there shall be stay of recovery of the disputed tax till disposal of the appeal pending before the Tribunal subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax within a period of six (6) weeks from today. However, it is made clear that the amount, if any already paid, shall be given credit to the above stipulated sum. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 15th July, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire At party’s costs (BO) Nn. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:15181 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 15/07/2008