IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7371 of 2009 Between: M/s. Suvarna Cements Ltd. Mallelacheruvu Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, Rep by its Director, Mr. J.S. Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Kodad, Nalgonda District. 2 The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in insisting for payment of the disputed interest to a tune of Rs. 6,75,118/- in pursuance of his proceedings dated 19-1-2007 and contemplating to take coercive steps for recovery of the disputed interest even during pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and stay application before the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and restrain the 1st respondent from taking any coercive steps for recovery of the disputed interest pending disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and also declare that since the petitioner in a sick industry, the petitioner is liable to pay interest only @ 10% per annum for the period to Section 16 (2) of the APGST Act Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition for challenging the validity of the order passed by Joint Commissioner. Permission is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th April, 2009 ks