IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2519 of 2009 Between: M/s. Professional, D.No.54-9-7, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Represented by its Managing Partner, Uppala Appa Rao S/o.Ellaiah R/o.304, G.K. Towers, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Commercial Tax Officer, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 M/s. I.D.Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd. Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 2.2.2009 in Rc. TINI 28250114355, issued U/s. 29 of the APVAT Act, 2005 by the 1st respondent for realization of the alleged tax arrears relating to the 3rd respondent from the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequently declare that the petitioner who is a surety is not liable to pay any arrears of tax or penalty relating to 3rd respondent after 1997-98. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, J) Rule. Heard Sri V. Ramachandra Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Aggrieved by the notice dt.2.2.2009 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Vijayawada (second respondent herein), calling upon the petitioner’s banker to make payment of Rs.8,92,412/-, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner stood as surety to the third respondent and submitted a letter dt.26.4.1997, which was received by the respondent on 26.4.1997. In the said letter, the petitioner undertook the responsibility of discharging tax due from the third respondent to the Government and informed that the tax dues could be recovered from them. On the ground that tax, for assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, was due from the third respondent, the impugned notice came to be issued to the petitioner’s banker calling upon them to pay the said amount. Sri V. Ramachandra Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on Section 12(7) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (for short, the Act) read with Rule 28(8) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules (for short, the Rules), would contend that the Department could only recover the tax due for the year in which the letter of surety was given. According to the learned Counsel, even if the date of receipt of the letter of surety, i.e., dt.26.4.1997, is taken to be the date of commencement of the period of surety, the one year period had expired on 26.4.1998 and it is only if any tax was due for the period 26.4.1997 to 26.4.1998 that the department could proceed against the petitioner. Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for the Department, had sought time on an earlier occasion to obtain instructions. At today’s hearing he has placed on record the letter of surety submitted by the petitioner. He would fairly state that the scope of Section 12(7) of the Act, read with the Rule 28(8) of the Rules, fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in New Kamal Bar and Cafe v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and that this Court has held that the Department was entitled to recover the tax due by the dealer, from the surety, only for a period of one year from the date on which the letter of surety was given. Following the said judgment, another Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.26881 of 2006, dt.29.12.2006, had quashed a similar notice of recovery of tax dues on the ground that the tax related to a period beyond the year to which the letter of surety pertained. Since the question raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra, and has already been conclusively decided in the afore- mentioned two Division Bench judgments, following the same the impugned notice is liable to be and is, accordingly, quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 29.4.2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Bnr/asp [1] 42 APSTJ 77 (AP)