IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21352 of 2008 Between: M/s.Ch.Venkaiah & Co., Contractors D.No.30-21-2 Kakaninagar, Chuttugunta, Vijayawada-520002, Rep.by its Managing partner Sri.P.Raja Babu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Works & Projects),Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad 2 The Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Roads,Erramanzil Hyderabad 3 The Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Admn & N.H. Erramanzil, Hyderabad 4 The Superintendent Engineer (R&B) Circle Vijayawada,Krishna District 5 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Vijayawada Krishna district 6 The Pay And Accounts officer,Vijayawada Krishna District 7 The Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharamapuram 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that 1. the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dated 14.3.2007 issued by the 1st respondent is arbitrary, illegal, invalid contrary to the provisions of the AP Valued Added Tax Act, Rules made there under G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 29.7.2005 and 141 dated 27.7.2006 and unsustainable 2. The petitioner is entitled for addition of VAT Component of 4% on the entire value of work done in terms of the provisions of the G.O.ms.No.11 dated 29.7.2005 ,141 dated 27.7.2006 and section 22(3) of the AP VAT Act 3. Declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 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 agreement and 4.Consequently direct the respondents 2 to 6 to pay the diﬀerence 2.6% amount on the total value of the work relating to the Agreement Nos.23 dated 13.6.2008 ,48 dated 30.7.2008 ,46 to 49 dated 6.8.2008 to the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. 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 a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 484 of 2008 dated 18.01.2008. However, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes 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 14.03.2007 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, as agreed by the counsel on either side, that the balance of 2.6% has to be added by the respondents in the bills. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan September 30, 2008 MAS