IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6781 of 2009 Between: M/s. Robbins Tunneling & Trenchless Technology (I) Technology Pvt. Ltd., 5-9-201/B/1, 1st Floor, Modern Enclave, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids Hyderabad Rep. by V.S. Hariharan, Head (Finance & Accounts) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Nampally Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer, Sultan Bazaar Circle, Hyderabad. 3 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, A.P. 5 Government of Andhra Pradesh Through Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department,. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order in Appeal No. A/70/2008-09/V dt. 23-3-2009 passed by the Respondent No.3, rejecting stay application filed by the petitioner and the consequent Recovery Notice dt. 25-3-2009 issued by the Respondent No.1 for the recovery of tax of Rs. 2,74,15,000/- under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as illegal, arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently restrain the respondents from recovering from the petitioner tax of Rs.2,74,15,000/- under Central Sales Tax Act 1956 for the period from June, 2007 to Dec. 2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition so as to avail alternative remedy of filing a revision application against the impugned order dt.23.3.2009. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that if a revision application is filed by the petitioner against the impugned order within two days from today, the revisional authority will decide the revision application within one week from the date of filing of the application, provided the petitioner extends its cooperation. 3. We are sure that the petitioner or its representative shall not pray for time and shall appear before the revisional authority on the date which might be fixed by the authority so that the revision application can be disposed of as soon as possible. 4. Subject to above said observations, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 01.04.2009 bnr