THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7727 OF 2008 Date:28.03.2011 Between: M/s.Tulasi Projects PrivateLimited, 1-155, Radhanagar, Kothur Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Director Mr.M.V.Subba Reddy .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer-I, Proddatur, Kadapa District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7727 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order under challenge in this writ petition is the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, dated 08.01.2008 whereby and whereunder the order of the assessing authority dated 05.10.2007 in treating the transactions in question as a works contract, and not of sale, was upheld. While several contentions were urged by Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his challenge to the validity of the order passed by the second respondent it would suffice, for the purpose of this writ petition, to note that the petitioner had specifically contended before the second respondent that, as per the advance ruling issued in CCT’s Reference No.PMT/P&L/ A.R.COM/501/2005, dated 30.06.2006 relating to M/s.HPC Electricals Limited, Secunderabad, they were eligible to claim 100% ITC. While the second respondent has noted the said contention of the petitioner, he has not dealt with this question in the order under challenge in this writ petition. Under Section 67(4)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act, for brevity), the ruling of the advance ruling authority is binding on all officers of the Commercial Tax Department below the rank of the Commissioner. As held by this Court, in an unreported judgment in M/s.Tirupati Chemicals v. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (VMU-I) No.1, Division, Vijayawada[1], the principles of law laid down in the clarification/ruling of the advance ruling authority would bind the second respondent also. As to whether the principles of law laid down in M/s.HPC Electricals Limited, Secunderabad, govern the case on hand is as a matter which ought to have been examined by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Failure to do so would render the order passed by him illegal. The impugned order passed by the second respondent is, accordingly, quashed. The second respondent shall, after putting the petitioner on notice, pass a fresh order after considering the objections, if any, raised by the petitioner including the binding effect of the advance ruling authority M/s.HPC Electricals Limited, Secunderabad. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 28.03.2011 KH [1] W.P.No.1582 and 2119 of 2010, Dated 25.11.2010