IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15855 of 2008 Between: M/s K.C. Venkat Reddy & Co. Having its Regd. Office at 6-2-906 Ramanagar, Anathapur, rep., by its Managing Partner K.V. Jagan Mohan ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning (Works and Projects) Department, At Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Ananthapur 3 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Kurnool District. 4 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Kadapa District. 5 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, N H Circle, Ananthapur 6 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle,N H Circle, Kurnool District. 7 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Ananthapur District. 8 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Kadapa District. 9 The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Ananthapur 10 The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Dharmavaram. 11 The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Pulivendula 12 The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Nandyal. 13 The Executive Engineer, P R Division, Penukonda. 14 The Executive Engineer, PR Division, Ananthapur. 15 The Executive Engineer, PR Division, Jammalamadugu Kadapa District. 16 The Executive Engineer, R & B N H Division, Ananathapur. 17 The Executive Engineer, R & B N H Division, Kurnool. 18 The Executive Engineer, R & B N H Division, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 19 The Commercial Tax Officer No. II, Raghuveer Towers, Ananthapur. 20 The Pay & Accounts Officer, Anantapur. 21 The Pay & Accounts Officer, Kadapa. 22 The Assistant Pay & Accounts Officer, Kadapa. 23 The Assistant Pay & Accounts Officer, Nandyal. .....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 a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or direction : (1) Declaring the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dt. 14.3.2007 issued by the first respondent as arbitrary, illegal, invalid, contrary to the provisions of the A P Value Added Tax Act, Rules made thereunder, G O Ms Nos. 11 dt. 29.7.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.141 dt. 27.7.2006 and unsustainable. (2) The petitioner is entitled for addition of VAT component @ 4% on the entire value of work done at the time of payment of each bill in terms of the provisions of G O Ms.No.11 dt. 29.7.2005, G.O.Ms.No.141 dt. 27.7.2006 and Section 22 (3) of the A.P. VAT Act by adding 4% in the Estimates. (3) Declaring the action of the Respondents in adding only 1.4% to the estimated cost of work and deducting 4% towards VAT at the time of payment of each bill in respect of some works, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the AP Value Added Tax and the Government Orders in force as well as the terms of the agreement, and (4) Consequently direct the Respondents to pay the difference of 2.6% amount on the total value of the works, to the petitioner, and (5) Award costs and pass such other or further orders, as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX, GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS AND GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15855 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard both sides. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. At the time of hearing, the 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 18.1.2008. However, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax submitted that though the petitioner states that it 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 the respondents not to remit any further amount in respect of deductions already made pursuant to the memo, dated 14.3.2007 of the 1st 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 the respondents in the bills. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 4th August, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:15855 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 04/08/2008