IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.9475 of 2008 Between: C. Krishna Murthy, Special Class Contractor, S/o. Veeraraghavaiah, aged about 50 years, Flat No. 42, Mouli Towers, Chandramoulipuram, Vijayawada - 520 101, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary Finance (Works & Project) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer (R &B), Vijayawada, Krishna District, 3 The Executive Engineer (R&B, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 The Executive Engineer (R&B, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 5 The Pay and Accounts Officer (W&P), Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), (LTU) Division-II, Vijayawada. ...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 writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that 1) the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dt.14-3-2007 issued by the 1st respondent in arbitrary, illegal, invalid, contrary to the provisions of the AP Value added Tax Act, Rules made there under, GO Ms. No.'s 11 dt. 29-7-2005 and 141 dt. 27-7-2006, and unsustainable 1) the petitioner is entitled for addition of VAT component of 4% on the entire value of work done at the time of payment of each bill in terms of the provisions of the GO Ms. No. 11 dt. 29-7-2005, and 141 dt. 27-7-2006, and Section 22 (3 of the AP VAT Act, 3) declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in adding only 1.4% at the time of payment of each bill i.e. lesser than 4% as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the AP value Added Tax and the Government orders in force as well as the terms of the agreements, and 4) consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to pay the difference 2.6% amount on the total value of the work relating to the Agreement Nos. 97 and 144, dated 18-10-2007 and 03-1-2008 respectively to the petitioner and 5). Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.9475 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both the sides. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. At the time of hearing, learned counsel on either side submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.484 of 2008 dated 18.01.2008. However, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax submitted that though the petitioner states that he has paid 4% tax on the entire work done, it has to be ascertained while processing the final bill. Following the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 6 not to remit any further amount to the fifth respondent in respect of deductions already made pursuant to the memo dated 14.03.2007 of the first respondent, while processing the final bill, however, subject to the payment of 4% which is stated to have been made by the petitioner. It is needless to mention that, as agreed by the counsel on either side, the balance of 2.6% has to be added by respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the bills. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 28th April 2008 RRB