THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.26961 of 2005; 605, 9689, 13981, 13991, 14990 and 26572 of 2008. Dated:30.06.2011 Between: Sri Kaleswari Travels, And others. … Petition And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.26961 of 2005; 605, 9689, 13981, 13991, 14990 and 26572 of 2008. COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In these writ petitions, the challenge is to Section 3 of the Andhra Prad Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 (A.P.Act No.26 1996). Various contentions have been raised. This Bench considered the validity of the same provision, in a batch of petitions in M/s.Vijaya Traders, Kadapa v The Commercial Tax Office Kadapa (W.P.No.12455 of 2005 and batch). By judgment dated 22.06.2011, contentions were negatived, and it was held that Section 3 of the impugned Act does not suffer from any of the infirmities canvas before the Court. In so far as the question whether the vehicles purchased imported by the petitioners are motor vehicles or not, the matters were reman to the assessing officer with a direction to decide whether machinery/construction equipment purchased by the petitioners would fall wi the definition of “motor vehicle” as defined under the impugned Act, if necess by obtaining necessary information from the Gazetted Officer in the Departmen Transport. Following the same, these writ petitions also stand disposed of uphold the constitutional validity of the impugned Act. However, the assessment ord are set aside and remitted to the respective assessing officers to determ whether or not the machinery/construction equipment purchased by the petition are “motor vehicles”, after considering the contentions raised by the petitione While doing so, it shall be open to the assessing officer to obtain information f a Gazetted Officer in the Department of Transport, if necessary. We also obse that, if any of the petitioners have claimed exemption as dealers, the same shal considered by the assessing officer keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.974, da 26.11.1996. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S. RAO ___________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 30.06.2011 vs