IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND [22ND] DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No. 21922 of 2009 Between: Sandhya 70 MM (Air-cooled) 1-7-1069/71, RTC Cross-raods Hyderabad-500 020 Rep. by its Manager, K.S.Ramarao ..... PETITIONER A N D Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad & 2 others .....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 declaring the Memo G.I.No.S/407/08 dated 22.09.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and pass such other appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K. Durga Prasad & Mr. VVR Acharyulu Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Balaji Varma, Spl. SC for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER:(Per GR,J) Insistence by the petitioner for payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax by the 2nd respondent without any legislative basis in the appropriate legislation or in any statutory instrument, is the grievance urged herein. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 11.06.2008 imposing tax of Rs.1,21,319/- on the petitioner after an inspection dated 21-07-2009 of the premises. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent under Section 9-B of the A.P. Entertainment Tax Act. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a memo dated 11.08.2008 directing the petitioner to file a condonation petition on the ground that there was a delay. The petitioner did so seeking condonation of delay of 16 days. A year thereafter, on 22.09.2009, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned memo directing the petitioner to pay Rs.15,172/- for entertaining the appeal by reference to the provisions of A.P.VAT Act. In the circumstances, the writ petition is filed. Sri K. Balaji Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes has obtained instructions and states that the 2nd respondent, in realization of the error in issuing the impugned memo, has entertained and admitted the appeal preferred by the petitioner and would proceed to adjudicate the same on merits and without insisting on any deposit as a condition precedent for entertainment of such appeal. In view of the submission made on behalf of the 2nd respondent-appellate authority by the learned Special Government Pleader, the substantive grievance in the writ petition does not subsist even though the 2nd respondent has not formally withdrawn the impugned memo dated 22.09.2009, particularly in the context of the fact that the 2nd respondent has now entertained and admitted the appeal. The writ petition is disposed of recording the submission made on behalf of the 2nd respondent by Sri K. Balaji Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J December 22nd 2009. Lrkm/Bss.