THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Dated this the 24th September 2009. WRIT PETITION No. 16501 of 2009. Between: M/s Stackline Systems (P) Ltd., Secunderabad, Hyderabad. ………Petitioner vs. 1. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax Hyderabad and 3 others. ……….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 16501 of 2009. ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has not passed orders on the stay application filed by him under Section 33 (6) of the A.P. VAT Act 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) and seeks a direction to stay the operation of the orders of the 1st respondent dt. 17.3.2009, pending the petitioner’s appeal before the Tribunal in A.R.No. 435 of 2009. The petitioner is in the business of modular furniture. The 3rd respondent issued a notice on 30.3.2007 asserting a liability to tax at 12.5% and not at 4% on modular furniture on the ground that the petitioner had wrongly opted for composition of tax by submitting From No.250 and called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,72,710/-. Despite the petitioner’s objections to the notice, the 3rd respondent is stated to have confirmed the assessment. The petitioner thereagainst preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. The appeal was allowed by the 2nd respondent by the order dt. 23.8.2007 and the order of the Primary Authority-the 3rd respondent was set aside. The 1st respondent thereupon suo motu took up the matter in revision and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the appellate order of the 2nd respondent be not set aside. Despite the petitioner’s objections, the 1st respondent passed an order on 17.3.2009 confirming the order passed by the Primary Authority-the 3rd respondent. The petitioner thereagainst preferred an appeal to the STAT under Section 33 of the Act along with an application seeking stay of the 1st respondent’s order dt. 17.3.2009, on 4.8.2009. Asserting that the 1st respondent has not passed any order on the petitioner’s application, this writ petition is filed apprehending threat of coercive action pursuant to the revisional order of the 1st respondent. It is stated by the learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes that the 1st respondent by an order dt. 21.8.2009 served on the petitioner on 7.9.2009 had rejected the petitioner’s application for stay. In the light of the above assertion, the substantive grievance in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies, as advised. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 24.09.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 16501 of 2009. DATED: 24th September 2009.