TREVC/211/2010 of M/S. DULICHAND INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD Vs STATE OF A.P., REP BY STAT, HYDERABAD on 17 December 2025

[ 348e I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

IEI^II=$l=Im

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

TAX REVISION CASE NO:211 OF 2010

Tax Revision Case under Section 22(11 R/w Rule 40 of APGST Rules U/s APGST Act aggrieved by the order dated 06-07-2009 in T.A.No.1256 of 2OO4 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 (APGST).

Between:

M/s. Dulichand Industries, Hyderabad, Rep by its Partner Sri Dulichand

...Petitioner/Appellant

AND

State of A.P., Rep by the State Representative before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad RespondenURespondent Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A K JAISWAL

Counsel for the Respondent: _ _ _ _

The Court made the following: ORDER

Iil T'HE HIGH COURT trlOR THE STATE OF TELIINGAITA

AT ITYDERABAI)

THE} HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE P.SAM KOSITY

THE HONOURABLE sRI JUs#SSUDDALA cHALAPATHI RAo Tax Revislon Case No.211 of 2OI0

Date of Order : 17.12.2o125

BEIWEEN:

M/ s.Dulicharrd Industries

Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh.

...Respondent

ORITER : (per llon'bte Sri JustieP.SAI[.KOSflf/

When ttre matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.A.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for tlle petitioner had informed the Court that in spite of best effortr; being mad.e by him to contact the petitioner for obtaining instrr.rctions in the matter, there is no response from the petitioner.

2. In view of above submission and grven the fact that no instructions ar,3 forthcoming from the petitioner so as to enable the learned counse[ for the petitioner to pursue the instant Tax Revision f t

case, this Bench is of the considered opinion that as of now the instant Tax Revision Case can be dismissed for want of prosecution.

3.

Accordingly, the Tar Revision Case stands dismissed for want of prosecution. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to revive the case in case if need so arises. Interim order granted, if any, shall stand vacated.

4.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dlbsed.

SD'. N SRIHARI

DEPUW REGISTRAR

,ffRUE COPY'/

OFFICER

To,

1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

2. One CC to SriA K Jaiswal, Advocate IOPUCI

3. Two CD Copies

ABK /ABK

,

/

HIGH COUFIT

DATED: 1711212025