HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 23044,23140 AND 23157 OF 2009. Dated 28th October,2009. Between M/s. The Paper Products Ltd, IDA, Bollaram, Medak District, Rep. By its Plant Head Mr.V.Srinivas ….Petitioner in all the WPs and The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad and ors. …Respondents in all the WPs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 23044,23140 AND 23157 OF 2009. COMMON ORDER: (per GR.J.) The grievance in the above writ petitions pertains to the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 respectively. The issues involved in all the Writ Petitions are identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts in writ petition No. 23044 of 2009 are recorded for disposal of all the writ petitions. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; a registered dealer under the provisions of the AP VAT Act 2005 and the CST Act, 1956; and an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. It is carrying on business of printing and supply of packing material such as flexible laminates, wrap round labels, pouches and printed cartons. For the assessment year 2005-2006, the petitioner filed its monthly returns reporting the turnover achieved by it under the AP VAT Act, 2005 and the CST Act 1956 and had paid the applicable taxes. According to the petitioner, the packing material manufactured by it ought to be classified under Entry 90 of the Schedule IV of the AP VAT Act, 2005, taxable at 4%. The petitioner, however on an erroneous interpretation has been paying tax at 12.5% on the mistaken impression that the goods fall under Schedule V, i.e. unclassified goods. This is in respect of the flexible laminates, wrap round labels etc. As far as the printed cartons and pouches are concerned, the petitioner has been taxed at 4% considering these goods to fall under the Entry 90 of the Schedule IV. For the assessment year in question, the first respondent issued proceedings proposing to treat the turnover of design and development charges reported by the petitioner under the CST Act, in respect of which, the petitioner had paid tax at 4%,3% and 2% respectively and also on the turn over of export sales as local sales taxable @ 12.5% on the ground that there was no movement of the cylinders from Andhra Pradesh to other States or outside the country. Challenging the assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal and a stay application before the second respondent. By the order impugned dated 09.10.2009, the second respondent rejected the stay application. The reason recorded by the second respondent for denying grant of stay, if it may be called a reason, reads as under: “I have heard the arguments of the Authorized Representative and perused the grounds of Stay application and gone through the impugned assessment order carefully. In the absence of recorded evidence in support of the contentions raised therein prima facie I find no case to grant stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.13,90,559/-. I, therefore, refuse to order of stay of collection of disputed tax of Rs.13,90,559/-. Accordingly, the stay application is rejected.” Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the third respondent on 26.10.2009. As the revision is pending before the third respondent against the order of the second respondent dated 09.10.2009 declining to grant stay and as a consequent notice dated 21.10.2009 has been issued by the first respondent demanding payment of the disputed tax, the petitioner is satisfied if pending consideration of the revision by the third respondent, the first respondent is directed not to initiate coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the review petition filed by the petitioner before the third respondent is pending, we shall not record any observations on the quality of the order passed by the second respondent against which review is preferred or on the merits of the petitioner’s substantive contentions. Ends of justice are met by directing the respondents not to initiate any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax as set out in the notice of the first respondent dated 21.10.2009 till the disposal of the review petition preferred by the petitioner to by the third respondent and communication of the decision to the petitioner. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above, after hearing Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Balaji Varma, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. No costs. ------------------------------ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ------------------------------------ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated 28th October, 2009. Msnr.