THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 15779, 15784 and 15787 of 2009. COMMON ORDER: (Per RR,J) These three writ petitions are filed questioning the action respondents in seeking to recover the balance of the disputed tax for di assessment years. Since the questions involved are common all the thre petitions are being disposed of by this common order with the consent o Sri.Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned S Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. The notice issued by the 1st respondent dt. 21.7.2009, calling up petitioner to pay tax within three days of receipt of the notice, is under cha in these writ petitions. The petitioner’s grievance is that the authorities d give them the benefit of input tax on DEPB licences purchased by them t the said licences fall within the definition of ‘goods’ under the A.P. VAT Act Against the order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Earlier, on the Appellate D Commissioner and the Revisional Authority rejecting the petitioner’s reque grant of stay, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of W.P.No of 2009 and batch and this Court by order dt. 15.4.2009, granted stay of pa of further amount of tax pursuant to the assessment order as the petition already paid 50% of the disputed amount of tax. Thereafter, the App Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by which, the pet preferred a second appeal to the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal. On the ground that Section 33(6)(b) of the A.P. VAT Act 2005 (for ‘the Act’) prohibited grant of stay pending disposal of the appeal, the pet has now invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article the Constitution of India. Section 33(6)(a) of the Act empowers the Additional Commissioner Joint Commissioner, on an application filed by the dealer, subject to such and conditions, as he may think fit, to order stay of collection of the tax dispute pending disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. In case the order appealed against is one passed under Section 21 or under Sect of the Act, Section 33(6)(b) prohibits grant of stay pending disposal of the a filed against the order of the 1st appellate authority. In the case on han petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal again order of the 1st appellate authority and, in view of the prohibition under S 33(6)(b) of the Act, the petitioner could not have approached either the Add Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner seeking stay of payment disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. While the learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial seeks to sustain the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on meri consider it wholly inappropriate to examine these contention in the p proceedings in as much as the second appeal preferred by the petitio pending before the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal which is the final fact f authority under the Act. Suffice to direct that, as this Court had ear W.P.No. 5451 of 2009 and batch, granted stay of payment of the further a on the ground that the petitioner had already paid 50% of the disputed amo tax, the impugned notice is set aside and that the respondents shall forbea collecting the disputed tax, pending disposal of the appeals, preferred b petitioner before the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no as to costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM __________________________ RA RANGANATHAN,J 11.8.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.Nos. 15779, 15784,15787 of 2009. Dated: 11.8.2009