ORDER : Ninala Jayasurya, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupati, to admit the appeal without insisting for payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax by setting aside the check memo No.105-A/2019-20 dated 23.01.2020 issued by the second respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of settled principles, etc. 2. The facts, in brief, as narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are as follows: 3. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the rolls of the first respondent. The petitioner’s final assessment under the CST Act for the year 2011-12 (CST) has been finalized by the first respondent by order dated 25.02.2016, wherein a demand of Rs.1,63,48,899/-was raised in the absence of H Forms, C Forms, Direct Export Documents and I Forms. It is further stated that the first respondent passed the assessment order without noticing the forms as submitted by the petitioner and consequently it has been imposed with artificial liability of Rs.1,63,48,899/-. However, subsequently, the first respondent issued a revised show-cause notice on 07.09.2019, to which the petitioner, by letter dated 13.09.2019, requested the first respondent to complete the assessment based on the documents already filed. However, the first respondent denied the benefit of exemption on exports observing that the H Forms and documents for direct exports were filed after assessment and he has no power to accept the same. While matters stood thus, in view of the Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in TA No.167/2016 dated 08.01.2019, the petitioner requested the first respondent to take H Forms and grant relief. However, the first respondent returned all the H Forms and proof of direct exports vide endorsement dated 15.10.2019. Challenging the said endorsement of the first respondent, the petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent within time. The second respondent, however, issued check memo No.105-A/2019-20 dated 23.01.2020 requiring the petitioner to show proof of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner addressed a communication to the second respondent that since the appeal is filed against the endorsement and not against an assessment order, there is no requirement to pay 12.5% of the disputed tax like in the other cases. The petitioner addressed a communication to the second respondent that since the appeal is filed against the endorsement and not against an assessment order, there is no requirement to pay 12.5% of the disputed tax like in the other cases. It was also brought to the notice of the second respondent that this Court, in W.P.No.12362 of 2019 dated 13.09.2019, held that there is no requirement to pay 12.5% of the disputed tax in appeals filed against endorsement. However, as there is no response from the second respondent, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes representing the respondents. 5. Insofar as the facts of the case are concerned, there is no dispute. Likewise, the legal position with regard to passing of orders in W.P.No.12362 of 2019 dated 13.09.2019. In the said order, a Division Bench of this Court, while mentioning that the pre-deposit of part of the disputed tax is required only when the appeal is filed against the assessment order, and since no tax is quantified under the endorsement, held that the insistence of the authorities to pay 12.5% of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal against the endorsement is untenable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above order of the Division Bench of this Court squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes fairly accepts the same. 7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of the present writ petition taking into consideration of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12362 of 2019 dated 13.09.2019 and the submissions made by both the parties. 8. As a result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement vide check memo No.105-A/2019-20 dated 23.01.2020 issued by the second respondent is hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner against the endorsement of the first respondent, without insisting for payment of 12.5% of disputed tax. 9. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. No order as to costs.