IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6809 of 2009 Between: M/s Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd., No.148, Sikh Village, Secunderabad, Rep by its Chief Financial Officer, Mr.Percy Mahernosh. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, S.D.Road Circle, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:- a) declaring the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order through his proceedings dated 04.03.2009 for the tax period 2007-2008 disallowing the notional input tax credit on the ground of non- production of original purchase invoices though there is no such requirement under law in terms of Rule 20(3a) of AP VAT Rules, 2005 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, without authority of law and jurisdiction and set aside the same and declare that for claiming notional input tax credit under Rule 20(3)(a) therein no requirement of production of original purchase invoices and what is required is that the vehicles must be previously registered under the Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh and b) also declare that the order passed by the Authority for Clarification and Advance ruling in the case of Dr.Reddy's Laboratories dated 22.11.2006 is binding on the respondents in view of the language of Section 67(4)(iii) of AP VAT Act, 2005 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition so as to enable the petitioner to challenge the validity of the impugned assessment order before the appellate authority. The apprehension which was expressed by the learned advocate for the petitioner was that the submissions which may be made before the appellate authority might not be considered. We do not see any force in the submission because we are sure that the submissions which might be made before the appellate authority would be duly considered and especially, the evidence which the petitioner adduces before the appellate authority would also be taken into account by it. With the above observation, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition so as to enable it to file a statutory appeal. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8th April, 2009. ks