IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15038 of 2008 Between: M/s. Diamond Dot, D.No. 8-3-903/G/11/A2, Behind Bata Show Room, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Rep by its Partner, Sri R. Bala Murali Krishna S/o. Sri R. Bhaskar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Nampally Station Road, Opp : Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad A.P. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Nampally Station Road, Opp : Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad A.P. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Punjagutta Circle, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 06-5-2008 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref. LIII(2)/366/2008, for the period June, 2005 to March, 2007 as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 06.05.2008 passed by the first respondent rejecting to stay collection of the disputed tax for the period from June, 2005 to March, 2007 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and to consequently direct the respondent not to collect the disputed tax, pending appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the third respondent herein and is engaged in the sale of printed materials. While so, the third respondent, issued show cause notice proposing to levy tax at 12.5%. Though the petitioner submitted reply, the third respondent passed an order dated 30.6.2007 confirming the levy at 12.5%, which was appealed against by the petitioner before the second respondent and the second respondent while confirmed the imposition of tax by order dated 27.2.2008, has rejected the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, and also moved stay petition before the first respondent, which was rejected by the first respondent, vide the order impugned herein. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the first respondent, the first respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the first respondent, the third respondent is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. 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 July 14, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}