Andhra Pradesh High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 87 of 2004 on 30 June 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
TAX REVISION CASE NO: 87 OF 2004
Between:
M/s Mercury Cable Industries, Hanumanpeta, Vijayawada
AND
...PETITIONER
The State of Andhra Pradesh
... RESPONDENT
Petition filed under Section 22(1), read with Rule[10][ of][ the][ AP][ General]Sates Tax U/S A.P General Sales Tax Act, to revise the orders passed by theSalesTaxAppellateTribunal,HyderabadinT.ANo.569/1998dated30.06.2003 preferred against the common order in Appeal[No.VJA/11/88]/97-98 & Appeal No.VJA/11/100/97-98 on the file of the Appellate DeputyCommissioner(CT), Vijayawada, which was preferred against[Assessment]No. 1327/93-94 on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharamapuram,Vijayawada Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAJI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent: SPL GP FOR TAXES
The Court made the following:
APHCOI0194492004IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHQMSAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
[3526]
PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYAAND
Page 1 of 3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
TAX REVISION CASE No.87 of 2004
Between:
M/s.Mercury Cable IndustriesHanumanpeta, Vijayawada.
... Petitioner.
AND
The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andyhra Pradesh,Nambally, Hyderabad.
... Respondent
Counsel for the Petitrorier:
1. K Raji ReddyX
Counsel for the Respondent:1.The Spl. G.P. for Taxes The Court made the following ORDER: (per NJS,J)
The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,[by]common order dated 30.6.2003 disposed of Tax Appeal[Nos.530][ and 569]of 1998.TRC No!42 of 2004 filed against the orders[in][ T.A.][ No.530][ of]1998 was dismissed as not pressed. The present TRC[is][ filed][ against][the]orders in T.A. No.569 of 1998. Be that as it may.
/
2. Though the matter is listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”,there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.It appears that thepetitioner is not interested to prosecute thecase.there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.It appears that thepetitioner is not interested to prosecute thecase.
3. Hence, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed for non-prosecution.No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed.No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed.
Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHYJOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
Page 2 of 3
To,
1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad
2. The Sal^s^Tgx Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra[Pradesh]
3. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Vijayawada
4. The Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharamapuram, Vijayawada ■'S. One CC to Sri K Raji Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to Spl. GP for Taxes, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
7. Three CD Copies
MV
vna
•a
high court
dated ; 22/04/2025
ORDERTRC.No.87 of 2004
X
°Kuto™"
If3 JOr JUT?^. Current Section ^
69^/z
CASE FOR NON-
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…