IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH 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 : 20833 of 2008 Between: M/s. WEP PHERIPHERALS LIMITED, Block-H-1, Floor, Surya Towers, S.D. Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. Rep its Authorised Representative, Mr. J. Krishna Kishore Raju Accounts Executive ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT) Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 2nd Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, S.D. Road Circle, 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 direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned proceedings order No. CCT'S Ref. No. LIII(2)/591/2008, dated 26-8-2008, issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, unjustiﬁed and contrary to provisions of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.V.RAO 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 26.08.2008 passed by the ﬁrst respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.5,34,847/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.V.A.T. Act and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the tax period from January to March, 2006, pending appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of computer peripherals, electronic typewriters, dot matrix printers and UPS and works contracts and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent. The third respondent while rejecting the claim of labour, as shown in the turnovers submitted by the petitioner, has assumed that the transaction is only a sale contract, levied higher rate of tax at 12.5% and assessed the petitioner by order dated 1.3.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Along with appeal, the petitioner also ﬁled stay petition, which was, however, rejected by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner preferred stay petition before the ﬁrst respondent, who also rejected the same by the order impugned in this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has paid 12.5% of the demanded amount, the third respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the balance amount, taking advantage of the rejection of stay by the 2nd and 1st respondents and if stay is not granted, the petitioner will be put to serious hardship. 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, within a period of eight weeks from today and the respondents are directed not to take coercive step for recovery of the 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 Ramesh Ranganathan September 24, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}