IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21616 of 2008 Between: M/s Haryana Steels Centre (KDM) Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered office at 6-4-454/3, Bholakpur, Secunderabd – 500380 Rep by its Director Ravinder Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Late Ram Kumar Agarwal, aged 35 years, Business. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, R.P.Road Circle, Secunderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabd. .....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, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of balance disputed tax amounting to Rs.1, 71, 595/- as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and violating the Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and consequently interdict the respondents from recovering the balance disputed tax of Rs.1,71,595/- from the petitioner pending disposal of the Appeal bearing No.S/81/2008-2009 before the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.KRANTI KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the second respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.1,71,595/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the respondents not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2004-05, pending appeal before the second respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of dealing in iron and steel products, such as M.S. Bars, squares, MS rebars and scrap and it is a registered dealer on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent herein. The ﬁrst respondent has issued ﬁnal assessment tax directing it to pay an amount of Rs.1,13,980/-, which was paid. Thereafter, by show cause notice dated 14.11.2007, the ﬁrst respondent proposed to revise the ﬁnal assessment order, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.2,22,39,094/- should not be added to the gross turnover declared in the year 2004-05. Subsequently, by notice dated 31.05.2008, a revised demand notice was issued to the petitioner in Form B3 raising a demand of Rs.1,96,110/- on the above said turnover. Aggrieved by the revised assessment order, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the second respondent along with a stay petition, which was, however, rejected by the second respondent by order dated 19.08.2008. Hence, this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the second respondent, the second respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of the stay petition by the second respondent, the ﬁrst respondent has issued a notice dated 9.9.2008 demanding the petitioner to pay the balance disputed tax and is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery thereof. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 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 demanded 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 September 30, 2008 Copy in a week //BO// MAS