IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4105 of 2009 Between: M/s R9000 Textiles and Garments, Koti, Hyderabad. Rep by its Partner Sri.P.Satyanarayana, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Sultan Bazar Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)., Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the stay application filed by the petitioner through the impugned proceedings in CCT's Ref.No.LV(1)/62/2009 DATED 12.2.2009 for the tax period April, 2006 to March, 2007 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and contrary to the Provisions of the Act as well as the order passed by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling and set aside the same and declare that the petitioner is entitled for input tax credit on the Plant and machinery, Packing Materials used for ready made garments and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax of Rs.16,64,009/- for the tax period April, 2006 to march, 2007 under AP VAT Act, 2005 pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petition has become infructuous. 2. The petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th July, 2009 ks