IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18063 of 2008 Between: M/s. A.B.C Engineering Works, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Rep. by its Partner Mr. G. Venkateswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Autonagar, Vijayawada. 2 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, No. II Division, Vijayawada. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada. 4 State Bank of India, Patamata Branch, Vijayawada Rep. by its Branch Manager. .....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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in dismissing the stay application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of recovery of the disputed tax of Rs. 76,09,084/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST through the impugned order Dt. 11-8-2008 and the Consequential coercive action of the respondents initiated under Section 29 of APVAT Act through the impugned Garnishee notice Dt. 12-8-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same and restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs. 76,09,084/- for the assessment year 2004-2005 under the APGST pending disposal of the appeal before the 3rd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the third respondent rejecting to stay the collection of disputed tax of Rs.76,09,084/- as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 and consequently direct the respondent not to collect the disputed tax for the year 2004-05 and also restrain from the respondents from taking coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax, pending appeal before the third respondent, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in overburden contracts viz., drilling, blasting, loading, unloading, transportation, etc. and a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent herein. During the assessment year 2004-2005, the petitioner reported the gross turnover and exempted turnover as Rs.50,80,65,750/- and claimed exemption on the entire turnover since no part of the turnover is taxable and also filed audited report. While so, the second respondent issued show cause notices dated 2.12.2005 and 23.1.2006 proposing to pass final order, to which the petitioner has filed detailed objections through its letter dated 25.4.2006. But the second respondent, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner has passed an order levying tax on the disputed turnover of Rs.30,22,907/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent and also moved stay petition, which was rejected by the third respondent, vide the order impugned herein and pursuant to the rejection of the stay application, the first and second respondents are insisting for payment of the disputed tax and have initiated proceedings under Sec.29 of the Revenue Recovery Act directing the 4th respondent Bank to remit the disputed tax amount. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the third respondent, the third respondent has refused to grant stay, pursuant to which coercive steps are contemplated for recovery of disputed tax amount, including issuance of garnishee notice. It is further submitted that if the garnishee notice is not suspended, the petitioner has to face much difficulty in operating the account to meet the regular transactions. In view of the above submission, we deem it appropriate to suspend the garnishee notice so as to enable the petitioner to continue the operation of the account and to comply with the conditions that would be imposed while granting stay by this court, till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be suspension of the garnishee notice till the disposal of the appeal before the third respondent subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed 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 balance 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 P.V.Sanjay Kumar August 20, 2008 Operative portion by wire at party’s costs //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}