IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLESRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4354 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Constructions, Advocates' Colony, Hanmakonda, Warangal District, represented by its Managing Partner M.Ravinder Reddy S/o.M.Ramakrishna Reddy, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning (Works and Projects) Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, N A B A R D, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Nellore. 4 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Khammam. 5 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Karimnagar. 6 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Warangal. 7 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Gudur, Nellore District. 8 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Khammam. 9 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Karimnagar. 10 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Warangal. 11 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Mulugu, Warangal District. 12 The Pay & Accounts Officer, Somasila, Nellore. 13 The Pay & Accounts Officer, Tekulapally, Khammam. 14 The Pay & Accounts Officer, LMD Colony, Karimnagar. 15 The Pay & Accounts Officer, Chintagattu, Warangal. 16 The Commercial Tax Officer, Fort Road, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or Writs, order or direction declaring the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dt. 14.3.2007 issued by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A P VAT Act and Rules made thereunder and to consequently hold that petitioner is entitled for addition of 4% on the entire value of work done and deduction of 4% towards VAT at the time of payment of each bill, in terms of provisions of G O Ms.No.11 dt. 29.7.2005, G.O.Rt.No.141 dt. 27.7.2006 and under Section 22 (3) of AP VAT Act by directing the respondents to pay the difference of 2.6% amount on the total value of works, to the petitioner; Award costs Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1, 12 TO 15: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 11: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.16: Government Pleader for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. 2. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities. 3. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 4. The petitioner is a contractor, who had entered into a contract with Panchayat Raj Department. It is an admitted fact that 4% of Value Added Tax (VAT) had been deduced by Panchayat Raj Department from the amount payable to the petitioner, but, in fact, it has given credit to the petitioner to the tune of only 1.4%. So, it is an admitted fact that 2.6% of the amount of tax is to be paid by respondent No. 7 to the petitioner herein. 5. The learned Government Pleader has fairly submitted that respondent No. 7 shall do the needful for making payment of the amount payable to the petitioner, if it makes an application to that effect. 6. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall, after calculating the amount payable to it, submit an application to respondent No. 7 and on receipt of such an application, respondent No. 7 shall do the needful for making payment of 2.6% of the amount of which no credit has been given so far to the petitioner. 7. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of as allowed. 8. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 04th March, 2009 ks