IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH 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 : 10767 of 2009 Between: M/s.Maytas Infra Pvt Ltd., H.No.6-3-186/5/A, 3rd floor Amogh plaza, Begumpet, Hyderabad rep.by its Deputy General Manager (Indirect Taxation) Mr.R.A.Swaroop ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, Begumpet Circle Hyderabad 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Divison, Hyderabad 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, office of the Commissioner of Commercial taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 4 The AXIS Bank Ltd., KPHB colony Branch, Hyderabad rep.by its Branch Manager .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed penalty of Rs.1,44,08,668/- for the assessment year 2007-08 under the APVAT Act and initiating coercive action through the impugned Garnishee Notice in Form VAT 206 dated 7.3.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded without authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from initiating coercive action for recovery of the disputed penalty amount pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent and also declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any penalty on the turnover disclosed voluntarily and paid the tax under protest Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY 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) In view of the statement made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents that respondent No. 3 has already passed an order in the revision application filed by the petitioner, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the validity of the order passed by respondent No.3. Permission is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8th June, 2009 ks