IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4991 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sri Vadivambigai Textile Mills Ltd., Kothapet, Tenali, Guntur District, Rep. by its Depot Keepet R. Dhanunjaya Rao, S/o. Late Anjaneyulu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) (FAC) Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Nampally St. Road, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Guntur. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer Morrispet, Tenali Guntur District. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmamus declaring the impugned Order dt. 22-4-08 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No. L-V(4)/203/2008 for assessment year 2003-2004 (APGST) as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and to pass such other suitable orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: SPL GP FOR TAXES The Court made the following : Order follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4991 of 2009 O R D E R : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the impugned order dated 22-4-2008 passed by the first respondent in CCT’s Ref.No.L-V (4)/203/2008 for the assessment year 2003-04 (APGST) as illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a registered dealer at the relevant time under APGST & CST Act (now under APVAT Act) and is an assessee on the rolls of the third respondent. It is stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act at the relevant time (and now under Tamilnadu VAT Act) and is carrying on business of manufacture and sale of polyester yarn. The manufactured polyster yarn at the petitioners mill in Tamilnadu, will be brought to its Sales Depot at Tenali in Andhra Pradesh and sales are effected in Andhra Pradesh. 3. It is stated that the petitioner has been reporting turnover based on the sales effected by it and tax thereon was being paid from time to time. The third respondent while making assessment for the year 2003-04 i.e., on 26-10-2004 estimated the turnover said to have been suppressed by the petitioner during the year 2003-04. The third respondent passed an order dated 27-12-2005 for the year 2003-04. 4. It is further stated that as against the order dated 27-12-2005 passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who by his order dated 20-2-2008 confirmed the order passed by the assessing authority despite the petitioner contending that there is no basis for estimating the turnover for the assessment year 2003-04 and it is incorrect to allege suppression during the year 2003-04 based on the inspection done in the year 2004-05. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 20-2-2008 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. As the Tribunal has no power to grant stay, the petitioner filed a stay petition before the first respondent for stay of collection of disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the first respondent passed an order dated 22-4-2008 in CCT’s Ref.Nio.LV-4/2003 rejecting the stay petition filed by the petitioner seeking stay of collection of balance disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The appeal filed before the Tribunal is still pending. 6. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner questioned the impugned order dated 22-4-2008 passed by the first respondent. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 8. 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 disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 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. 7. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 13-3-2009. I s L N B : Furnish CC in two days. B/o. I s L