THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. No.16025 of 2009 08-09-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Associate Engineering Projects, rep. by its Managing Partner Mohd. Najamudin ...Petitioner vs. The Additional Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.16025 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per RR,J) Aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent dated 25.03.2009, rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay of collection of the disputed tax pending appeal before the STAT, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in execution of works contracts. During the Assessment year 2004-05 (APGST), the petitioner executed a works contract of laying roads for the State Government. For executing these works they purchased bitumen from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd respondent, by his order of assessment dated 12-03-2008, levied tax on bitumen purchased from outside the State rejecting the petitioner’s contention that it was an inter-State transaction and could not be assessed to tax under the APGST Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent who, by his order dated 30-01-2009, dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal(STAT) which is said to be pending as on date. Sri B.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act,1956, a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter- State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. He would contend that, since bitumen was purchased by the petitioner from outside the State for execution of works contract, it was an inter-State sale under Sec.3(a) of the CST Act and, in view of Section 38 of the APGST Act, the provisions of the State Sales Tax Act were not applicable to such inter-State sale transactions. He would further submit that the petitioner has already paid 50% of the disputed tax pending appeal before the STAT. On the other hand, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes would contend that purchase of bitumen from outside the State constituted one transaction and its incorporation in a works contract another transaction of “deemed sale”. He would submit that the latter transaction was liable to tax under Section 5(F) of the APGST Act and that the revenue was justified in levying tax thereupon. Since this question is pending adjudication before the STAT it is wholly appropriate for us to record any finding thereupon. Suffice to observe that the petitioner has an arguable case on merits and, in view of the fact that they have already paid 50% of the disputed tax, ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance tax due pending disposal of the appeal before the STAT. With the observations and directions as above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 8th SEPTEMBER 2009. TSNR