It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a service provider and accordingly it is paying service tax to the Union of India and as the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act").

It has been further submitted that according to the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 3 VST 95; [2006] 145 STC 91, the petitioner is rendering services and, therefore, there is no question of paying tax under the provisions of the Act. He has, therefore, submitted that no amount of tax should be recovered under the provisions of the Act and the proceedings whereby tax is sought to be recovered should be stayed during pendency of the petition.

On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - authorities that petitions involving similar legal issues have already been admitted by this court and they are to be finally heard on February 16, 2009.

It has been further submitted that in similar matters, this honourable court has stayed the recovery proceedings on a condition that the petitioners pay one-third of the amount of tax payable by them. He has, therefore, submitted that at least one-third of the amount of tax payable should be paid by the petitioner.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to an interim order dated September 29, 2008 passed by the honourable Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 23247 of 2008 (Reliance Communications Infrast. Ltd. v. Asst. Commr. of Commercial Tax) wherein it has been stated that payment of one-third of the amount of tax should not be treated as a precedent and the matter should be considered on the merits by this court and, therefore, looking to the facts of the case, no amount should be directed to be paid by the petitioner.

We have heard the learned advocates and have noted the fact that matters involving similar legal issues have already been admitted and they have to be finally heard on February 16, 2009.

It is an admitted fact that in all other matters stay had been granted on a condition that the petitioners in those petitions should pay one-third of the amount of tax payable by them. Submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is true so far as not treating earlier orders as precedent because, interim orders are normally not treated as precedents. However, the fact remains that if this court has protected all similarly situated petitioners on a particular condition, we would not like to digress from the said practice more particularly in view of the fact that the petitions are to be notified for final hearing on February 16, 2009. We are of the view that uniformity should be maintained and the court should remain consistent in the matter of grant of interim relief.

Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed, by way of ad interim relief, that there shall be stay with regard to recovery of the amount covered by the impugned order dated December 31, 2008 subject to a condition that the petitioner pays one-third of the disputed tax under the impugned order dated December 31, 2008 within eight weeks from today. It is clarified that if any amount has already been paid, the same shall be given credit to.