ORDER :

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.

Challenging the proceedings in CTD Order No.ACO DIN3727102244485 dated 26.10.2022 of the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Vijayawada/3rd respondent imposing the condition that petitioners/appellants shall deposit 50% of the disputed tax by giving credit to the tax already deposited by them while granting stay of collection of disputed tax pending appeal filed by petitioners before the VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, the petitioners/appellants are before us in the present writ petition.

2. The 4th respondent assessed the petitioners to CST vide Assessment Order in A.O. No.99326 dated 19.02.2018, wherein he determined the total turnover and net turnover of the petitioners as Rs.2,53,16,290/- and Rs.54,33,440/- respectively and fixed the exempted turnover at Rs.1,98,82,850/- out of the total turnover, as the said amount pertains to export sales covered by the relevant H forms and accordingly, passed the Assessment Order.

(a) Subsequently the 2nd respondent issued pre-revision show cause notice dated 31.03.2020 to the petitioners and passed the D.C. Order No.ZH3707210D54231 dated 22.06.2021 under Section 32 of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, „the AP VAT Act, 2005?) and proceeded to revise the original Assessment Order dated 19.02.2018. By virtue of the revised order, the 2nd respondent denied the exemption granted to the petitioners on export sales for a turnover of Rs.1,98,82,850/- and levied the tax @ 5% on the said turnover. The tax burden on levy comes to Rs.9,94,143/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent passed the said order on the sole premise that H forms submitted by the petitioners were not supported by the Foreign Buyer Purchase Agreements. Pursuant to the revision order, the 4th respondent passed the Assessment Order in A.O. No.ZH370721OD39249 dated 27.07.2021 giving effect to the revision order passed by 2nd respondent.

(b) Aggrieved by the revision order passed by 2nd respondent, the petitioners preferred appeal in T.A. No.63 of 2022 before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. While filing the appeal, the petitioners made mandatory pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioners filed stay application before 3rd respondent seeking stay of recovery of the balance disputed tax pending appeal. The 3rd respondent passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 directing the petitioners to deposit additional 25% of the disputed tax while granting stay.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard arguments of Sri S.Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax-I representing the respondents.

4. The main plank of the argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that the revisional authority on an erroneous view that the petitioners have not produced the Foreign Buyer Purchase Agreements to claim exemption under export sales, revised the assessment order passed by 4th respondent and denied the exemption granted by 4th respondent over the turnover of Rs.1,98,82,850/-. The said revision order is contrary to law for many reasons. Firstly, that the petitioners have already submitted H forms as well as bill of lading prior to claiming exemption for the export sales under Section 5(3) of the CST Act. The submission of Foreign Buyer Purchase Agreements is not mandatory. However, the 2nd respondent took an erroneous view in the revision order and denied exemption. Nextly, the revision show cause notice was issued on 31.03.2020 and revision order was passed on 22.06.2021. Both acts were during the period when the country was facing COVID-19 pandemic. In such circumstances, the petitioners were unable to participate in the revision proceedings to appraise factual and legal position to 2nd respondent.

(a) Learned counsel would submit that on the above and other grounds, the petitioners filed appeal in T.A.No.63/2022 before the AP VAT Appellate Tribun