HON’BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.6116 of 2007 Between: M/s Golden Press (P) Limited …Petitioner. And Commercial Tax Officer, Gowliguda Circle, Hyderabad & others ….Respondents. :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri S. Suri Babu Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Commercial Tax 29.03.2007 Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ This petition is directed against order dated 06.03.2007, vide which the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal in the office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh (respondent No.3) declined to stay the recovery of the balance tax payable by the petitioner in terms of revisional order dated 01.12.2006 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Abids Division, Hyderabad (respondent No.2). The petitioner is engaged in the business of printing of text books and reading material. It is registered as a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’). For the assessment year 2001-02, Commercial Tax Officer, Gowliguda Circle, Hyderabad (respondent No.1) determined the gross and net turnovers of the petitioner at Rs.3,75,99,684/- and Rs.48,58,790/- respectively. By an order dated 01.12.2006, respondent No.2 revised the assessment, re-determined the net turnover of the petitioner at Rs.2,63,45,973/- and created tax liability of Rs.19,62,719/-. The latter challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). It also filed an application for staying the recovery of the disputed tax amounting to Rs.17,18,903/-. By an order dated 6-3-2007, respondent No.3 declined the petitioner’s prayer for stay. For this purpose, he relied on order dated 15-3-2005 passed by the Tribunal in Kalajyothi Process Ltd. v. State of A.P., referred to an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3136 of 2006 and held that in matters involving recovery of tax, an interim order cannot be lightly passed. Shri S. Suri Babu argued that the revisional authority committed a jurisdictional error by determining the liability of the petitioner regarding the consumables used in the manufacturing process and, therefore, order dated 01.12.2006 is liable to be quashed. He further argued that the revisional authority did not give notice and opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence to show that consumables used in the manufacturing process are exempted from payment of tax under the Act and the rules framed thereunder and on this ground also the revisional order is liable to be treated as nullity. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel, but have not felt impressed. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner against the revisional order is pending adjudication before the Tribunal, we do not consider it proper to express any conclusive opinion on the merits of the revisional order or the petitioner’s plea that it had not been given reasonable opportunity to defend its cause in the revision, but we do not have the slightest hesitation to observe that the view taken by the revisional authority on the entitlement of the petitioner to claim exemption in respect of the consumables is neither perverse nor the finding recorded by it suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record which could justify exercise of discretion by respondent No.3 to stay the recovery of tax. We are further of the view that during the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner, there is no warrant for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only for the purpose of granting interim relief to the petitioner. This view of ours is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd[1]. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be granted three weeks’ time to deposit the remaining tax. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes says that he does not have any objection. In view of the above, we allow three weeks’ time to the petitioner to deposit disputed amount of tax. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.7827 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29.03.2007 ksld [1] AIR 1985 SC 330