IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE 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 : 10927 of 2009 Between: M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, 6-3-666/B, 1st Floor, Deccan Chambers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Manager B. Nagaraj Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Abids Division, Hyderabad. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Andhra Pradesh, 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for balance disputed tax of Rs.3,69,48,360/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.4,22,26,576/- and the disputed interest of Rs.50,67,087/- for the tax period 2007-08 under the APVAT Act, through the impugned final notice dated 1.6.2009 in pursuance of stay rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 18.5.2009 even during pendency of revision petition before the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded and set aside the same and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the balance disputed tax of Rs.3,69,48,360/- out of total disputed tax of Rs.4,22,26,576/- and disputed interest of Rs.50,67,087/- for the tax period 2007-08 under the APVAT Act, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) At the time of hearing of this petition, it has been submitted by the learned Advocates that during the pendency of the petition, respondent No.3 has already heard the revision application filed by the petitioner. The order is awaited. Looking to the above facts, in our opinion, the petition has become infructuous. However, till the order is communicated by respondent No.3, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent authorities for the purpose of recovery of the amount of tax. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 10.06.2009 bnr Note: Issue C.C. by 11.6.2009. (B.O.) bnr