IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8122 of 2009 Between: M/s. Jai Raj Ispat Ltd. Rep. by its Executive Director, Mr. N. Venkateswarlu, Door No. 8, Pahse - III, IDA., Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer Jeedimetla Circle II Floor, Gagan Vihar, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division Hyderabad. 4 The Assistant Commissioner Enforcement - IV Hyderabad. .....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 not refunding the excess amount of tax of Rs.7,06,556/- for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 till date though the 1st respondent has a legal obligation to refund the excess tax without there being any application and in the absence of any orders passed withholding refund and direct the 1st respondent to refund the excess tax of Rs.7,06,556/- forthwith along with interest and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a petition wherein grievance has been made by the petitioner to the effect that a sum of Rs.7,06,556/- being refund of tax has not been paid to it. 2. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has placed on record a copy of order dated 27-06-2009 whereby order refunding the said amount has been passed. 3. In view of the above fact, the grievance ventilated in the petition has already been redressed and, therefore, the petition has to be disposed of and it is accordingly disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30th June, 2009 ks