IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2399 of 2009 Between: M/s. Aban Offshore Limited Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr. K. Chandru (Formerly known as Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd.) Having Registered Office at:113, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Kakinada Circle Kakinada. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Visakhapatnam Division Visakhapatnam. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 4 M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited Rajahmundry East Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order dor direction quashing the Form 206, dated 31-1-2009 issued by the 1st Respondent to the 4th Respondent for recovery of the balacen disputed tax of Rs.1,59,89,578/- from the funds of the Petitioner lying with the 4th Respondent even before the disposal of the revision application by the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Looking to the facts of the case, learned advocates have requested the Court that the petition be finally heard. In pursuance to the said request, the petition is heard and decided today. 3. It has been submitted by the learned advocates appearing for the parties that in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 7535 of 2009, this petition would not survive. 4. However, it has been requested by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that the revision petition which has been referred to in Writ Petition No. 7535 of 2009 is still pending and it is to be heard on 22-04-2009. Till the said revision petition is finally decided, order dated 11-02-2009 passed in this petition should operate. 5. Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that interim order dated 11-02-2009 passed in this petition shall remain in force till the revision petition is decided by the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad. The garnishee order passed by the respondent authorities shall not operate till the revision petition is finally disposed of by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Legal, Hyderabad. 6. Intimation of this order shall be given by the respondent authorities to the concerned authorities to whom garnishee orders have been communicated. 7. In view of the above order, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15th April, 2009. ks