IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1229 of 2009 Between: M/s Voltas Limited, 87/D, R.P. Road, Secunderabad-500 003, Rep by its Accounts Executive, Mr. Ch. Lakshman Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 2 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 that the notice of the 2nd respondent in CCT's Ref.No.LV(1)/745/2008 dated 16.1.2009 in rejecting the request for deferment of revision proceedings under Section 20(6) of the APGST Act as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and in violation of principles of natural justice and defeating the legislative will under Section 20(6) of the APGST Act and set aside the same and consequently restrain him from taking any further action pursuant to his notice in CCT's Ref.LV(1)/745/2008 dated 16.1.2009 pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition Nos. 25227 & 25158 of 2008 on the file of this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :1229 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the notice dated 16.1.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent in CCT’s Ref.No.LV(1)/745/2008 rejecting the request for deferment of revision proceedings under Section 20(6) of the APGST Act, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to restrain him from taking any action pursuant to the said notice, pending disposal of WP Nos.25227 and batch. The brief facts of the case are that against the orders of the 1st respondent for assessment year 2001-02, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the said Appellate Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 14.11.2006 remanded the matter to the 1st respondent. While so, the 2nd respondent issued revision show cause notice dated 19.11.2008 proposing to revise the orders of the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority. When similar revisions were made by 2nd respondent for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and assessment order was passed by 1st respondent for the year 2004-05, the petitioner filed WP Nos.25227, 25158 and 9826 of 2006 before this Court and obtained interim stay for the year 2004-05 and conditional stay for the years 2002-03 and 2003- 04. The petitioner while filing objections to the revision show cause notice stating that the question of law involved in the present revision is pending adjudication, sought deferment of revision proceedings. But, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent issued notice, dated 2.1.2009 and also the impugned notice directing the petitioner to file objections and appear for personal hearing on 30.1.2009. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. While reiterating the contentions that were raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is posted to 17th February, 2009. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of the writ petitions as to the similar revisions and assessment, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel that the request of the petitioner for deferment of revision proceedings in question, pending adjudication of WP Nos.25227 of 2008 and batch, is reasonable. But however, the petitioner is directed to file its objections, if any, to the notice impugned and the respondents are directed not to pass final orders till disposal of WP Nos.25227 of 2008 and batch. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice C.V. Nargarjuna Reddy Dated: 11.02.2009 Note: Communicate by wire Tomorrow at party’s costs (BO)/Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1229 of 2009 (ORDER delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 11th February, 2009