IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24851 of 2008 Between: M/s.K.Venkatapathi Raju Door No.39-9/1, Varma Complex, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam - 530 007, rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.K.Venkatapathi Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Visakhapatnam. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the 3rd respondent dated 19.8.2008 in priceedings CCT's Ref.No.LV(3)/608/2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unjustiﬁed and consequently restrain the 1st Respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.2,54,117/- for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Division bench of this Court made the following : Order follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24851 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Seeking a writ of mandamus granting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.2,54,117=00 for the assessment year 2004-05 (APGST) pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, quash the order passed by the third respondent vide proceedings CCT’s Ref.No.LV(3)/608/2008, dated 19-8- 2008 and restrain the ﬁrst respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the aforesaid disputed tax and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner ﬁrm is a registered dealer on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent under the provisions of APGST Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in business of execution of works contracts. The ﬁrst respondent through order dated 02-12-2006 ﬁnalized the assessment for the year 2004-05. Out of the total consideration received for the work in Rs.1,35,67,260=00 exemption was granted to the extent of turn over of Rs.1,32,30,200=00 and tax was levied on a net turn over of Rs.3,37,060=00 @ 8%. While exercising the revisional powers, the second respondent under section 20 (2) of the Act has proposed revision of assessment by withdrawing exemption granted by the ﬁrst respondent to the extent of turnover of Rs.31,76,458=00 out of Rs.1,35,67,260=00 following Rule 6 (2) of the Act. Thereafter, the second respondent arrived taxable turnover of Rs.35,13,418=00 in place of Rs.3,37,060=00 as determined by the ﬁrst respondent. The petitioner contested the revision contending that the work executed by the petitioner is spread over more than one year and the taxable turnover should be determined under Rule 6 (3) (i) and not under Rule 6 (2) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 02-7-2008 contending that the work executed by the petitioner is spread over a period of more than one year. It is stated that the ﬁrst respondent had examined all the agreements and relevant documentary evidence at the time of passing assessment order. Thus, the taxable turn over has to be computed under Rule 6 (3) (i) of the Act. The petitioner has also preferred an application for stay of collection of the balance disputed tax before the third respondent on 05-8-2008 pending appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The third respondent through order dated 19-8-2008 has refused to grant stay of collection of balance disputed tax. Pursuant to the order passed by the third respondent, the ﬁrst respondent has issued notice on 28u-8-2008 demanding the balance disputed tax and is contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of disputed tax. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though several contentions were raised before the respondent, the respondent has refused to grant stay vide the order impugned herein. It is submitted that pursuant to the rejection of stay by the third respondent, the ﬁrst and second respondent are contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into merits, we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioner to deposit ﬁfty per cent of the disputed tax amount, as per the impugned order, within a period of eight weeks from today and in the meantime 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 RAMESH RANGANATHAN 13-11-2008. I s L NB: Furnish CC today. B/o. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}