IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7799 of 2009 Between: M/s. W.W.S. Sky shop Pvt. Ltd., 6-3-85/2, A.R. Plaza, II Floor, Opp. Sheeshmahal Theatre, Beside Soam creation, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500 016(A.P.), Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ravindra Mahato. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Commercial Tax Officer, Somajiguda Circle, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned order Ref.No. CCT's Ref.No.LIII(2)/103/2009 dated 17.03.2009 passed by the 1st respondent, as it is contrary to the provisions of law and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. J. V. RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned Advocates have submitted that the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the third respondent dt.24.12.2008 by filing an appeal. 2. In our opinion, disputed questions of fact are involved in the petition and, therefore, it would be just and proper if the appellate authority disposes of the appeal at an early date. 3. Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes has submitted that looking to the peculiar facts of the case, it would be possible to give priority to the appeal pending before the second respondent – Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. 4. In the circumstances, it is directed that the appeal, which has been filed against the order of third respondent, dt.24.12.2008, be disposed of by the second respondent at an early date and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the second respondent. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has assured this Court that the representative of the petitioner appearing before the appellate authority shall not pray for time so as to extend cooperation to the appellate authority to decide the appeal at an early date. 5. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 20.04.2009 bnr