ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed to hold that the order passed by the 1st respondent in ADC Order No. 5081/04-03-2020, dated 3.3.2020, in rejecting the appeal filed vide S. No. 10/2018-19 against the revised assessment order for the tax period 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 under A.P. VAT Act, 2005, on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 12.5% of the disputed tax as required under the third proviso to Section 31(1) of A.P. VAT Act, 2005, as illegal, without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of A.P. VAT Act, 2005. 2. The facts in issue are as under: The petitioner herein is a registered dealer on the rolls of 2nd respondent and doing business as a builder/developer. The petitioner entered into a Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 22.5.2012 vide registered document No. 1669 of 2012 with one Vanja Gurudasaradhan to an extent of 1524.44 square yards of land in Sy. No. 129/2, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District for development/construction of an apartment complex. Later, the petitioner obtained building permission for construction of apartments and named the said tower as "Nandi Towers". He also constructed another apartment complex and named it as "Mayuri Towers", in its own land situated in Sy. Nos. 32/2, 32/3, 32/4 of Thottambedu Mandal. After constructing the building, the petitioner is said to have sold semi-finished flats falling to its share and thereafter at the time of registration of the semi finished flats, the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kalahasthi, is said to have collected VAT @ 1.5% on the sale value. 3. While things stood thus, assessment orders came to be passed vide A.O. No. 47035, dated 27.12.2016 imposing VAT on the sale consideration received for the sale of said semi-finished flats to the purchasers. Penalty orders vide A.A.O. No. 59331, dated 25.3.2017 came to be passed imposing penalty, equivalent to tax under Section 53(3). When there were number of mistakes in calculation, the same was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent i.e., Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who passed a revised assessment order vide A.A.O. No. 102190, dated 8-3-2018, wherein he once again imposed tax on sale of semi-finished flats. Aggrieved by the said assessment and penalty orders, the petitioners filed statutory appeals, which were rejected on 9.9.2019. Aggrieved by the said assessment and penalty orders, the petitioners filed statutory appeals, which were rejected on 9.9.2019. The same were challenged before this court by way of filing writ petition No. 18887 of 2019 and W.P. No. 18906 of 2019 raising various grounds, but, however, both the writ petitions were disposed of setting aside the rejection order dated 9.9.2019 and directing the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to entertain the appeals giving liberty to the petitioner to make deposit 12.5% of the disputed tax as well as the penalty within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, enabling the appellate authority to admit and dispose of the appeals in accordance with the procedure established by law. The order also states that the amounts, if any, already deposited shall be given credit. 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner claims to have complied with the directions of the High Court by depositing balance of 12.5% of the disputed tax and also deposited 12.5% of the disputed penalty within the time granted by the High Court, but, however, the same came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner paid only Rs. 6,300/-, out of the total amount of Rs. 3,71,129/-. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 5. Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly submits that when the very payment of tax is in dispute and when VAT @ 1.5% of the sale value has already been paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed, the order of the authority in calculating the tax after deducting the amount paid before the Sub-Registrar, is totally illegal, improper and without jurisdiction. In other words, he pleads that when the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 4,17,010/- at the time of registration of the semi-finished flats and when 12.5% of the disputed tax on Rs. 33,86,040/- comes to Rs. 4,23,255/-, the short fall for payment would only be Rs. 6,245/-, which the petitioner has paid and as such, the authority erred in rejecting the appeal on non-fulfilment of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. 6. 4,17,010/- at the time of registration of the semi-finished flats and when 12.5% of the disputed tax on Rs. 33,86,040/- comes to Rs. 4,23,255/-, the short fall for payment would only be Rs. 6,245/-, which the petitioner has paid and as such, the authority erred in rejecting the appeal on non-fulfilment of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. 6. The same is strongly disputed by Sri Y. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, on the ground that the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption in selling semi-finished flats is a matter which requires adjudication, and at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax. He further pleads that the total tax liability was assessed at Rs. 33,86,040/- and after deducting the amount already paid, the balance tax to be paid was arrived at Rs. 29,69,030/- and 12.5% of the said disputed tax would be Rs. 3,71,129/-, which the petitioner has to pay. Therefore, the calculations made by the petitioner are totally erroneous and cannot be accepted. In other words, he submits that this is one other method of giving an interpretation to the proceedings so as to avoid payment of tax. 7. Before proceeding further it would be just and proper to refer to the observations made by Sri Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in Mc. Dowell's case. The definition of tax avoidance, as Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy puts-in in Mc Dowell & Company Limited vs. The Commercial Tax Officer : AIR 1986 SC 649 , is the art of dodging tax without breaking the law. The Court went on to hold that the tax avoidance, it seems, is legal, tax evasion is illegal. It has been observed that there is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. The Court went on to hold that the tax avoidance, it seems, is legal, tax evasion is illegal. It has been observed that there is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. After referring to various authorities on the subject, namely, tax avoidance and tax evasion Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, who delivered a separate judgment while agreeing with the majority judgment, observed as under: "the proper way to construe a taxing statute, while considering a device to avoid tax, is not to ask whether the provisions should be construed literally, or liberally, nor whether the transaction is not unreal and not prohibited by the statute, but whether the transaction is a device to avoid tax, and whether the transaction is such that the judicial process may accord its approval to it." 8. Having regard to the observations made above and keeping in view of the same, we shall now proceed to deal with the matter. 9. The material placed before the Court and more particularly the orders passed by the authorities would show that, while passing the revised order of assessment, dated 8.3.2018, the Commercial Tax Officer, Puttur Circle, found that the tax due, on net turnover at 14.5%, was assessed at Rs. 33,86,040/-. After deducting the tax paid at the time of registration of the flats i.e., Rs. 4,17,010/-, the balance of tax which was to be paid by the petitioner was arrived at Rs. 29,69,030/-. Accordingly, the Commercial Tax Officer held that the dealer was to pay tax of Rs. 29,69,030/- on the irregularities noticed during the period of audit. It is to be noted here that the said amount was arrived at after deducting the tax paid at the time of registration. Thereafter, appeals came to be filed challenging the order dated 8.3.2018. Thereafter, writ petitions came to be filed challenging the revised assessment order dated 8.3.2018 and the penalty imposed vide order dated 14.3.2018, and consequently to set aside the impugned common order of the 2nd respondent dated 9-9-2019. Thereafter, appeals came to be filed challenging the order dated 8.3.2018. Thereafter, writ petitions came to be filed challenging the revised assessment order dated 8.3.2018 and the penalty imposed vide order dated 14.3.2018, and consequently to set aside the impugned common order of the 2nd respondent dated 9-9-2019. These two writ petitions were allowed setting aside the order dated 9.9.2019 and matter was remitted to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi, giving liberty to the petitioner to deposit 12.5% of the disputed tax as well as penalty within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, enabling the appellate authority to entertain/admit and dispose of the appeals, making it clear that amounts, if any, paid shall be given credit. 10. Having regard to the order passed, the petitioner is said to have paid Rs. 6,300/- as the balance of tax after adjusting the amount already paid and sought for admission of the appeal and hearing of the same on merits, which was rejected. 11. In other words, the case of the petitioner is that since 12.5% of the tax on Rs. 33,86,040/- would be around Rs. 4,23,255/- and since the petitioner has already paid Rs. 4,17,010/- at the time of registration of the property, suffice would it be, if a sum of Rs. 6,300/- is paid as balance tax. We are not in agreement with the mode in which the calculation is made. The issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of tax, on registration of semi-finished flats requires adjudication at the time of hearing of the appeal, but, the said issue cannot be gone into by this court, at this stage, i.e., while deciding as to whether the petitioner has to pay 12.5% of the balance disputed tax at the time of admission of the appeal. 12. As seen from the orders passed, the original authority assessed the total tax to be paid by the petitioner as Rs. 33,86,040/- and after deducting @ 1.5% paid at the time of registration of property, the authority assessed the total tax to be paid as Rs. 29,69,030/- and thereafter directed the petitioner to pay 12.5% on Rs. 29,69,030/-. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that he has already paid Rs. 4,17,010/- at the time of registration of the property and that he had to pay only Rs. 29,69,030/- and thereafter directed the petitioner to pay 12.5% on Rs. 29,69,030/-. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that he has already paid Rs. 4,17,010/- at the time of registration of the property and that he had to pay only Rs. 6,300/- now may not be correct. As seen from the record, the total tax liability that was arrived at is Rs. 33,86,040/- and after deducting the amount of tax paid, the balance disputed tax payable was arrived at Rs. 29,69,030/-, which is the disputed tax. In view of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, the Authority rightly directed the petitioner to pay 12.5% on the disputed tax, while preferring the appeal. Hence, the order of the Authority in rejecting the request of the petitioner for want of payment of balance 12.5% disputed tax requires no interference. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner pays balance 12.5% disputed tax as arrived at by the authority within six weeks from today, the authority may admit the appeal and then deal with it in accordance with law. In default, the authority may take further steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.