IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10404 OF 2010 Between: A.P. Paper Mills Ltd., A company incorporated under the Companies Act, Having its office at 501-509, 5th Floor, Swapnalok Complex 92, 93, Sarojini Devi Rod, Secunderabad, Rep.by its Managing Director Sri M.K. Tara ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Large Tax Payer Unit, Kakinada and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the notice dated 23.4.2010 issued by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and stay all further proceedings for recovery of the disputed tax for the assessment period from January, 2007 to March, 2009, pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the activities of developing, manufacturing and distributing paper, paper boards, pulp and other paper relates products and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. On the basis of the audit undertaken by the officials of the Commercial Tax Department on 2.1.2009, the first respondent issued notice disallowing the input credit availed by the petitioner and consequently passed an assessment order dated 8.2.2010, demanding an amount of Rs.84,68,776/- being the sum taken inappropriately as input tax credit and alleged under declared tax. The first respondent further raised a demand of Rs.1,81,748/- as penalty on the net tax under declare and Rs.16,30,210/- being the interest at the rate of 1% on the net tax under declared, by notice dated 9.2.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent along with a stay petition. The stay petition was rejected by an order dated 29.3.2010. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed an application seeking stay before the third respondent, pending appeal before the second respondent. It is stated that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the second respondent, the first respondent has issued notice dated 23.4.2010 calling upon the petitioner to make payment of the disputed tax within a period of two days, filing which coercive steps will be resorted to. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent while brushing aside the same, has rejected to stay the collection of the disputed tax. It is further stated that pending appeal before the second respondent, issuance of notice dated 23.4.2010 by the first respondent demanding payment of the disputed tax within two days and threatening to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, is illegal. 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 disputed tax amount within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the balance disputed tax, 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 Nooty Ramamohana Rao April 29, 2010 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs //BO// MAS