IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8651 of 2009 Between: M/s Brij Plywood Pvt. Ltd., No.D.No.246, Gaganpahad, Rajendranagar (M), R.R.District, Rep by its Managing Director, Mr. Pramod Kumar Agarwal S/o. Late Sri Brijlal Agarwal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Assistant Commissioner (CT) Audit, O/o. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. 2 Commercial Tax Officer, Special Commodity Circle, Saroorngar Division, 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction in a) declaring action of the 1st Respondent order dated 18-3-2009 in levying sales tax on the second sales of vehicles having purchased the same from the registered dealers is illegal, arbitrary and contrary law; b) declare the levy as hit by Section 13 (4) read with proviso to Rule 20(2) of the Act and Rules: and c) consequently declare the levy as unconstitutional to the Act Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Tejprakash Toshniwal Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Government Pleader for Commercial Tax Counsel for Respondent No.3: Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In view of the fact that the petitioner has already challenged the validity of the impugned order before the appropriate statutory authority, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition so as to enable the petitioner to proceed with the said appeal by raising certain additional grounds of appeal before the appellate authority. 2. Permission is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. It will be open to the petitioner to argue all other points, which might be raised before the appellate authority. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 7th July, 2009 ks