IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3464 of 2011 With I.A. No. 1468 of 2011 ==================================================== M/S Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Gurgoan and its Sales Depot/Branch Office at present Patliputra Cands, East Bhika Chak, Near Shahni Cement Bhandar, New Bye Pass Road, Anishabad, Patna through its Area Sales Manager of the Petitioner Company Shalendra Singh, son of Sri Rajwant Singh, resident of 104-A, Suchi Complex, Mazar Gali, Sheikhpura, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna. - Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Patliputra Circle, Patna - Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.V.Giri , Senior Advocate Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG1 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 2 23.02.2011 The petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the coercive action taken by the respondents-State of Bihar for recovery of its outstanding dues of Value Added Tax for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-2008 by attachment of the bank account of the petitioner. The matter in dispute is whether the commodity sold by the petitioner namely Potato Chips is amenable to Value Added Tax at the rate of 4% or at the rate of 12.5%. The petitioner has lost its claim before the assessing authority and before the appellate authority. Though the matter is pending before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal since 2008, the petitioner has not obtained stay order against the recovery of the outstanding demand nor the petitioner has approached the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for classification. The claims made in the petition disclose the tendency of the petitioner not to pay the disputed amount unless compelled. In view of the huge demand outstanding against the petitioner we are inclined to grant a limited relief to the petitioner to the 3 extent that there may not be coercive recovery against the petitioner if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs against the outstanding dues by 28th February 2011. For the aforesaid reason we direct the respondent authorities not to resort to coercive recovery if the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs against the outstanding demand for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. For the remaining amount, unless the petitioner obtains a restraint order from the concerned authority or the Tribunal below by 31st March 2011, the respondents will be at liberty to make recovery in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction and the observation the petition stands disposed of. Bibhash (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)