IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.V.M.P. NO. 1804 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO : 28193 of 2007 Between: M/s. Hind Metal Industries, Rep by its Partner, Sri Shantila Gala, S/o. Hiraji Gala office at 19/2, Azamabad, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial Tax officer, Musheerabad circle Hyderabad 2 M/s.Super Inducto Castings Private Limited, Rep.by its Director Sri Jayesh Gagalani, S/o. Pradip Kumar Gaglani, office at 19/5 Azamabad, 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 or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing the notice dated 15.12.2007 in Ref.No.J13/2007-08 dated 15.12.2007 demanding the arrears of tax of Rs.8,30,180 of the second respondent for the assessment years 1993-04 ,1996-97 and 1997-98 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of APGST Act 1957 and also contrary to the judgment of this Hon`ble court reported in 42 APSTJ pg 77 and to set aside the same consequently direct the first respondent not to collect the arrears of taxes of the second respondent from the petitioner firm and to grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KUNUKUDURGAPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) When the above Vacate Stay Petition is taken up for hearing, learned counsel on either side submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by a decision of this court in M/s. New Kamal Bar & Café, Hyderabad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh([1]). Following the same, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above judgment. No order as to costs. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition itself, the Vacate Petition is also closed. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan. July 4, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} [1] 42 APSTJ 77