IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12665 of 2008 Between: M/s. G.V.R. Infra Project Ltd., (Erstwhile M/s. G.Venkateswara Rao), 5-1-29/A/A, Near District, Khammam Rep. by its Authority Signatory, Sri. K.V.R.S.S.Sharma. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Warangal. 2 The Commercial Tax Officer (II), Khammam. .....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 a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the appeal in Appeal no.I.No.27/08-09, dt. 7.5.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further direct the first respondents to take the Appeal No.I.No.27/08-09 on file and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the Order dated 7.5.2008 made in Appeal No. I.No.27/08-09 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to further direct the first respondent to take the Appeal No. I.No.27/08-09 on file. The petitioner is a company engaged in works contract and a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. The petitioner was assessed for the assessment year 2000-2001 imposing tax of Rs.7,29,098/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the first respondent, but the first respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that the original challan for Rs.1,000/- towards Appeal Institution Fee was not filed and there is no proof of payment of the admitted tax. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has paid the admitted tax on 9.5.2008 and the petitioner undertakes to pay any deficient amount in compliance of depositing 12.5% of the disputed tax for maintaining the appeal and, therefore, sought for a direction to the first respondent to take the appeal on file. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of payment of the admitted tax and the undertaking to pay any deficient amount to constitute payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax, we feel it just and proper to refer the matter to the first respondent to take on file. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J.​ ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. JUNE 24, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}