IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.18131 OF 2009 BETWEEN: M/s. 4 Seasons Multi Cuisine Restaurant, Rep.by its proprietor Mr. Nayeem Ahmed. …. Petitioner AND The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, (FAC) Nampally, Hyderabad and Others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.18131 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mhammed) This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order dated 17-08-2009 passed by respondent No.1 in CCT.Ref.No.L.III(2)/320/2006 i.e. for the assessment year 2006-2007 under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the AP VAT Act, 2005 vide TIN No.28810183271 on the rolls of respondent No.3 and it is engaged in the business of running a restaurant. On 19-04-2007, respondent No.2 – The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, has examined the records of the petitioner and observed variations in the turnovers disclosed in the monthly VAT 200 returns and the sales effected by the petitioner and issued a notice dated 11-05-2007 in Form VAT 305A, estimating the tax liability at Rs.17,21,744/-. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to respondent No.2 stating that the tax liability estimated by respondent No.2 is not correct and that it can produce the records and requested him to give an opportunity for personal hearing. But, without giving any notice to the petitioner, respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 19-06-2007 conforming the tax liability at Rs.17,21,744/- and also interest at Rs.93,269/- and after giving credit of tax paid by the petitioner including the admitted tax of Rs.2,70,089/-, demanded balance tax of Rs.10,50,146/-. Against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal along with stay petition before respondent No.4 – The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) and respondent No.4 has granted stay on payment of 50% of the disputed tax till the disposal of the appeal, accordingly the petitioner paid the 50% of the disputed tax amount. It is further the case of the petitioner that during the course of hearing by respondent No.4, it has produced necessary evidence and also the books of account maintained by it and requested respondent No.4 to arrange for copies of working statement, basing on which respondent No.2 has estimated the alleged sales. But, respondent No.4 has dismissed the appeal, observing that the petitioner has not produced any books of account vide order dated 07-07-2009 in A.No.CV/14/2007-2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 28-07-2009 and also filed stay petition before respondent No.1 – The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal. Respondent No.1, without proper appreciation, rejected the stay petition by the impugned order, against which the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of these proceedings, an urgent notice dated 23-09-2009 has been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the balance tax amount of Rs.7,72,471/- within (7) days to avoid any further proceedings from the Department. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and fifty thousand only) within a period of six (6) weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the authority concerned, shall not take any coercive steps till the appeal is disposed of. It is further made clear that the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal, strictly on merits, as per law. This order shall remain in operation during the pendency of the appeal. 5. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 30, 2009. KTL