IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.24088 of 2003 Between: M/s.Saija Communications, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Represented by its Proprietor Sri GrandhiSivaiah, S/o.Seetharamulu. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Benz Circle, Vijayawada, KrishnaDist. .....RESPONDENT 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 to direct that Cell Phones functioning onelectronic principles would fall within the expression of electronic goodsliable to tax at the concessional rate of 4% in terms of G.O.Ms.No.910Rev.(CT-II) Department dated 31-12- 1999at the point of first sale in theState of Andhra Pradesh and the second and subsequent sales of the said cellphones are exempt from tax underSection 5-A in terms of Notification in G.O.Ms.no.911 Rev.(CT-II) Department dated31-12-1999 read withG.O.Ms.No.370 Rev. dated 1-6-2000 and as further clarified by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in CCT's Ref.No.A1(9)/264/02 dated 18-2-2003and as held by Honourable Supreme in 32 APTSJ 41in the case of M/s.BPL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH and consequently set aside the assessment order dated 29-7- 2003 in G.I. No. 2455/02-03 passed by the CommercialTax Officer, BenzCircle,Vijayawada levying turnover tax under Section 5A ascontrary to above mentioned Government Orders and grant such other relief or reliefs asaredeemedfit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.24088 of 2003 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B,Prakash Rao) Heard on either side. At the time of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court i n Udai Electronics,Visakhapatnam & Others Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P. & Others[1]. Following the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ___________________ C.Y.SOMAYAJULU.J Dated: 18.03.2008 Dsr ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commercial Tax Officer, Benz Circle, Vijayawada, KrishnaDist. 2.2CCs to 3.2CD copies [1] (2007) 44 APSTJ 46