THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25179 of 2010 October 07, 2010 Between: M/s.Om Surya Electronics Pvt.Ltd. … Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Somajiguda Circle, Mayur Kushal Towers, Abids, Hyderabad And others. ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25179 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The interlocutory order of the Tribunal in T.M.P.No.206 of 2010 in T.A.No.252 of 2010 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business in electrical/electronic goods and home appliances. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent. For the tax period 2005- 2006, the first respondent passed an order of assessment dated 15.10.2006 levying tax on the variation in stock arrived on the basis of arithmetical calculations. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent who, by his order dated 14.3.2008, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for verification of the books of accounts, and determining the turnover accordingly. The third respondent, by his order dated 10.12.2009, revised the order of the second respondent dated 14.3.2008 and upheld the order of assessment dated 15.10.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, which, by the order under challenge, rejected the petitioner’s application for stay holding that there was no evidence placed before it to show that the petitioner had placed copies of the credit notes before the Joint Commissioner (revisional authority). Sri B.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the assessing authority had determined the purchase value of the goods, after deducting the credit notes issued by the suppliers, which is merely an arithmetical calculation; he could not have resorted to such calculation when the books of accounts were available; the turnover ought to have been determined on the basis of the books of accounts; and, it is only if the authorities are satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that the entries in the books of accounts are not genuine, could they have resorted to estimation or arithmetical calculation. Learned Counsel submits that, though this question has been specifically raised in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not examined this aspect, and had rejected the petitioner’s request for stay, pending disposal of the appeal, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce evidence to show that the credit notes had been placed before the revisional authority. The contentions urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which forms part of the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, cannot be said to be without merit. However, we do not consider it appropriate to adjudicate on the merits of the contentions urged in as much as a substantive appeal is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. We consider it appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal, on condition that the petitioner deposits 75% of the disputed tax before the first respondent within a period of four weeks from today. The amount, if any paid earlier in this regard, shall be given credit to. Failure to comply with the order aforementioned would result in automatic vacation of the interim order, and the respondents can proceed to recover the disputed tax in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) October 07, 2010 YS