IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2492 of 2008 Between: M/s.Andhra Tanning Company, S.Nos.115, 116, Dhanapuram Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District represented by its Partner Sri V.Irshad Ahmed. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer-II(FAC) Adoni. 2 Dy.Commercial Tax Officer-II, Adoni. .....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 issue a writ of mandamus appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of 2nd respondent in issuing Form-4 and Form-5 notices dated 06-11-2007 and 17-01-2008 under Section 25 of A.P.Revenue Recovery Act, when statutory appeal of the petitioner is pending before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal filed under Section 21 of the A.P.G.S.T.Act, as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently grant stay of collection of Rs.2,55,243/- for the assessment year 2000-01 under CST Act pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal pending disposal of the appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The grievance which has been ventilated in the petition is that in spite of the fact that the stay application which has been filed before the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal is pending, the respondents authorities are trying to recover the amount of tax which is the subject matter of the appeal which has already been filed by the petitioner. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the stay application which has been referred to by the petitioner and a copy of which is at page 22 of the petition has already been decided. As the application has already been decided, the grievance ventilated in the petition would not survive. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the stay application has in fact not been decided. If it is so, it is directed that the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal shall decide the aforestated stay application within three weeks from today. In view of the above direction, ad interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated the moment the stay application is decided, if not decided so far. The petition stands disposed of in view of the above order. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 1st June, 2009. ks