IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST 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 : 8117 of 2009 Between: M/s. Balaji Industrial and Agricultural Castings, 16 IDA, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 037 Rep. by its Partner, M. Bhuvaneshwari, W/o. M. Sreekanth ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs Department of Revenue, 14, HUDCO Vishala Building, B-Wing, 6th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066 Rep by its Joint Secretary (Review) 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - M. Division, Hyderabad-IV Commissioner, Plot Nos. 16 & 21 Aditya Towers, Sari Sai Enclave, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011 .....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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Letter No. C.No. V/39/18/06/2006-TECH(PF-I) Dt.1-4-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India and to set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G. MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by learned Assistant Solicitor General, Sri A. Rajasekhara Reddy, for the respondents. 2. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 3. The petitioner has made a grievance in the petition that in spite of revision application filed by the petitioner, the revisional authority has not decided the revision application and the application for stay. 4. It is his case that though the revision application as well as the application for stay of recovery proceedings are pending before the revisional authority, the respondent authorities are trying to recover the amount of tax by use of coercive method. 5. Learned Assistant Solicitor General, Sri A. Rajasekhara Reddy, has submitted that in filing the revision application, there was some delay and therefore the application for condonation of delay is also pending. 6. In view of the fact that the proceedings are still pending, it would be just and proper if the revision application and other applications, namely, application for condonation of delay and application for stay of recovery of the amount of tax are heard at an early date. 7. It has been submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that it would be possible for the revisional authority to dispose of the aforesaid proceedings within six weeks from today, provided the petitioner extends its cooperation to the revisional authority. 8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has assured this Court that the petitioner’s representative shall not pray for time and shall extend his cooperation to the authorities so that the aforesaid proceedings can be decided at an early date. 9. In the circumstances, it is directed that the aforesaid proceedings shall be concluded by the revisional authority within six weeks from today and in the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount of tax etc., which are in dispute. 10. The petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 21.04.2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J bnr