THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22785 of 2010 Dated:21.09.2010 Between: M/s.The Bath Shoppy. …Petitioner and The Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad Circle, Punjagutta Division, 8th floor, Mayurkushal Towers, Abids, Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.22785 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a dealer on the rolls of the respondent. For the assessment year 2005-2006 the Assistant Commissioner passed orders in Form VAT 305 on 18.09.2006 levying additional tax of Rs.9,41,563/-. The petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. They were dismissed confirming the levy of additional tax as well as penalty. The petitioner filed further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal duly making a deposit of 50% of the disputed tax. The petitioner then filed an application for stay of collection of balance of tax and penalty before the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal. The same was rejected. The petitioner filed W.P.No.91 of 2010 when a notice of demand under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act), was issued by the respondent demanding the balance of tax. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing stay of collection of the disputed penalty on condition of the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed penalty. Thereafter, the respondent again insisted on payment of disputed tax. The petitioner again filed W.P.No.7720 of 2010, which was disposed of directing stay of recovery of the disputed tax on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax. The petitioner then filed its return for value added tax for the month of March 2010 duly adjusting the excess amount, allegedly, in a sum of Rs.2,35,390/- lying to the credit of the petitioner. But, the impugned notice of demand dated 21.08.2010 was issued, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed. We have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax. After receiving the notice of demand, the petitioner made a representation, which was delivered in the Office of respondent on 06.09.2010, requesting to refund the excess amount paid in a sum of Rs.2,35,390/- or adjust the said amount in the value added tax return for the month of March 2010. The petitioner contends that Section 38(1)(d) of the Act facilitates such adjustment, but the respondent failed to exercise the jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition observing that the respondent may consider the representation of the petitioner served in the Office of the respondent on 06.09.2010, and pass necessary orders keeping in view Section 38(1)(d) of the Act. This exercise shall be completed within a period of ten days from today, and appropriate orders be passed under communication to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 21.09.2010 vs