IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH 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 : 191 of 2010 Between: M/s. K.Yellaiah & Sons, Special Class Contractors, Bharat Gas Compound, Pragathi Nagar, Nizamabad, Rep. By its Partner Mr. K.Ramu ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer-III, Nizamabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in TMP No. 366 of 2009 in TA No. 282 of 2009 dismissing the petition filed for stay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.10,84,890/- out of the total disputed tax of Rs.18,32,106/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the APGST Act and consequently direct the first respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in TA No. 282 of 2009, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the execution of the works contracts and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The first respondent had completed the assessment for the year 2003-2004 by order dated 11.04.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent by order dated 5.7.2005 had allowed the appeal, holding that the inter-State purchases of bitumen amounts to inter-State transaction and not liable to tax under the provisions of the APGST Act. While so, the third respondent, proposing to revise the order passed by the third respondent, issued show cause notice dated 12.4.2006 on the ground that the exemption in respect of inter-State purchases of bitumen is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is submitted that the third respondent, without considering the objections filed by the petitioner, passed an order dated 30.8.2008 confirming the proposed revision. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in TA No. 282 of 2008 along with TMP No. 366 of 2009 seeking stay of the collection of the balance disputed tax, which was summarily rejected by the Tribunal, vide the order impugned in the writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the Appellate Tribunal, it has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the Appellate Tribunal, the respondents are contemplating coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 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, as per the impugned order or on before 31.03.2010 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 Tribunal. 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 March 4, 2010 MAS