THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18593 of 2011 Dated:06.07.2011 Between: M/s.Pepsi Co India Holdings Ltd. … Petitio And The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18593 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order of the first respondent dated 26.05.2011 rejecting petitioner’s application, and the demand notice issued by the sec respondent dated 25.06.2011 seeking collection of the tax demanded, under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner, a company dealing in snacks, is a dealer on the rolls of second respondent. For the assessment year 2007-2008, the sec respondent assessed the petitioner to tax and, by order dated 29.03.20 called upon the petitioner to pay tax of Rs.70,92,508/-. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent along with an applica seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax. The said stay application w dismissed by the first respondent by his order dated 26.05.2011. Aggrie thereby the petitioner filed a revision petition before the third respondent 28.06.2011, and the said revision petition is still pending as on date. Sri Kunuku Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, wo contend that the order of the first respondent dated 26.05.2011 is beref reasons and the order of the second respondent dated 10.06.2011, calling u the petitioner to pay the disputed tax even when the revision petition is pend before the third respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner has already elected to file a revision petition against order of the first respondent rejecting stay, and the revision petition is said to still pending before the third respondent. Having elected to invoke jurisdiction of the third respondent, it is not open to the petitioner to paral invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution India. The only relief the petitioner is entitled to in this writ petition is for order to the third respondent to dispose of the revision petition early. Sri Kunuku Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would s that the revision petition is posted for hearing on 08.07.2011. We consid appropriate, in such circumstances, to direct the third respondent to dispos the revision petition filed by the petitioner at the earliest, preferably 09.07.2011, and not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly without any order a costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 06.07.2011 vs