1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1806 OF 2009 M/s.Shree Ambika Trading Corporation. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) and others. ... Respondents. C.B.Thakar for the petitioner. B.B.Sharma, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 25th February 2010. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused petition. 2. This petition was tagged along with Sales Tax Reference No.7/2003. The said reference is disposed of by separate judgment dated 25th February, 2010. This petition is directed against the order of penalty imposed under section 9(2) read with section 36(3)(d) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ( BST Act for short). In addition to this, retrospective operation of section 36(3)(d) of the BST Act is also a subject matter of challenge. So far as challenge to the constitutional validity of retrospective insertion of section 36(3)(d) is concerned, the petitioner has filed purshis dated 25th February, 2010 stating therein that the petitioner does not want to raise the said challenge and prayed that the 2 said issue be kept open for being raised in an appropriate proceeding at appropriate stage, if the occasion arises. The said purshis is taken on record and marked `X for identification and the statements made therein are accepted. 3. In view of purshis filed by the petitioner, so far as challenge to the constitutional validity of retrospective operation of section 36(3)(d) of the BST Act is concerned, the same does not survive. 4. So far as declaration sought in the petition leading to imposition of penalty is concerned, the same stands answered while deciding Sale Tax Reference No. 7/2003 decided on 25th February, 2010. 5. In the above view of the matter, cause of action to proceed with the petition does not survive. Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of for want of cause of action with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)