THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9477 of 2011 Dated:27.07.2011 Between: M/s.Binjusaria Sponge & Power (P) Limited. … Petitio And Commercial Tax Officer, Ladbazar Circle, Hyderabad, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9477 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner company are value added tax dealers on the rolls of first respondent. For the year 2009-2010 they filed their monthly returns paid the tax. Acting under the authorization of the jurisdictional Commissio Commercial Taxes, the second respondent conducted audit. Sequentially assessment order was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner f appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. When the appel authority declined to grant stay, the petitioner approached the Additio Commissioner and obtained stay of collection of disputed tax on conditio depositing 50% of the tax. During the pendency of the appeal, the second respondent initia penalty proceedings by issuing show cause notice in Form VAT 203A da 12.10.2010. The petitioner submitted objections. However, the impugned o in Form VAT 203 was passed levying Rs.36,01,212/- towards penalty. In said order though the second respondent refers to the objections, and a observes that they were considered, there was no consideration. Howeve the notification and demand for penalty the second respondent observes the dealer has not filed valid objections. The case came up before us on 11.04.2011. Having regard to the gra of the allegations made against the second respondent we directed the Off to be present in the Court. The Officer appeared with the file. We perused file and found that the allegations made by the petitioner are not without basis. As requested by the Special Counsel the matter was adjourned for fi counter affidavit. Counter affidavit, however, is not filed. When the matter is called today both the Counsel submit that Appellate Deputy Commissioner, third respondent herein, has disposed of appeal setting aside the assessment order dated 12.10.2010 and remand the matter to the second respondent. In that view of the matter the impug order in this writ petition which is only consequential to the assessment o does not survive nor it is enforceable. Therefore, we set aside the same observe that it shall be open to the second respondent to initiate pen proceedings if need be later. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly without any order a costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 27.07.2011 vs