IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 26422 of 2008 Between: M/s.Om Refrigeration & Electricals, Shop No.1-8-144/152 Shop No.11, Arya Vysya complex, P.G.Road, Ranigunj, Secunderabad,rep.by its Managing partner Sri R.S.Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, M.G.Road Circle Hyderabad 2 The Deputy commissioner (CT),Begumpet Divison Hyderabad 3 The Additional commissioner (CT)(Legal) (FAC) 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 may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.10,41,360/- for the assessment year 2000-01 under the APGST Act arising in pursuance of the stay rejection order passed by the third respondent dated 31.10.2008 in CCTs.Ref.No.LIII(2)/703/2008 pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.26422 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for Commercial Taxes. This writ petition is directed against the order of the third respondent, dated 31.10.2008, declining grant of stay of collection of tax pursuant to a revisional order of the 2nd respondent, dated 15.07.2008, whereby, the 2nd respondent, in exercise of the powers under Section 20 (2) of the A.P.G.S.T Act, 1957, revised the assessment made for 2000- 01 and directed levy of Rs.10,41,359/- on the turnover of Rs.1,30,16,999/-. The 2nd respondent’s order was preceded by a show cause notice dated 12.07.2006 to which the petitioner lodged objections on 12.10.2006. Against the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 15.07.2008, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Tribunal and approached the 3rd respondent for interim stay of the additional tax liability determined by the 2nd respondent, which was rejected by the order impugned, dated 31.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the 2nd respondent-revisional authority had erred in concluding that the assessing authority had made the assessment on the basis of the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (ii) of the A.P.G.S.T. Rules, 1957 (for short ‘the Rules’), whereas the assessment was made under Rule 6 (2) of the Rules. From the order of assessment, dated 25.03.2004, it is, prima facie, not possible to conclude whether the same was under Rule 6(2) or Rule 6(3) (ii) of the Rules. In the circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the discretion exercised by the 3rd respondent in declining to grant stay, as to warrant interference in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. For this reason, we reject the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. However, we hope and trust the Sales Tax Tribunal would dispose of the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the 2nd respondent, expeditiously. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 05.12.2008 v v