IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO 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 ...PETITIONER AND 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 the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A No. 569/1998 dated 30.06.2003 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 Deputy Commissioner(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: f APHCOI0194492004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS [3526] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.87 of 2004 Between: / M/s.Mercury Cable Industries Hanumanpeta, Vijayawada. ... Petitioner. AND The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andyhra Pradesh, Nambally, Hyderabad. ... Respondent Counsel for the Petitrorier: 1. K Raji Reddy X 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 againstthe orders in T.A. No.569 of 1998. Be that as it may. 2 n 2. Though the matter is listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the Hence, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. case. 3. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 1. The Sal^s^Tgx Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Vijayawada 2. 3. 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 ORDER TRC.No.87 of 2004 I f3 JOr JUT? ^ . Current Section ^ 69 ^/z X °Kuto™" CASE FOR NON-