THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20568 of 2005 Dated:30.06.2011 Between: M/s.A.B.C.Engineering Works. … Petitio And The Commercial Tax Officer, Autonagar, Vijayawada, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.20568 of 2005 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner engaged in the works contract business is before this C under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the vires of the And Pradesh Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1996 (A.P.Act No of 1996) (the Act), including Section 13(2) thereof and the notice dated 06.09.2 of the first respondent for the year 2000-2001 levying entry tax as per notification issued by the Government under Section 3(1) of the Act. The challenge insofar as the impugned Act is concerned must fail. T Court in M/s.Vijaya Traders, Kadapa v The Commercial Tax Officer–I, Kad (W.P.No.12455 of 2005 and batch, dated 22.06.2011), has already negatived contentions in relation to the vires of Section 3(1) of the Act. Howeve submission is sought to be made that Section 13(2) of the Act, which requires aggrieved assessee to deposit the entire entry tax for the purpose of availing remedy of appeal, is ultra vires. When an Act has been upheld, it cannot allowed to be repeatedly challenged on some ground or the other which ma may not have been taken when the vires was considered by the Court. This w so held by the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd Shambhu Nath Mukherji[1]. In so far as the impugned order of the first respondent is concerned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy prima facie appears to be righ contending that the levy of the entry tax on a vehicle which was purchased fift months prior to entry into local areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh is illegal unauthorized. Be it noted, as per the first proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act, no shall be levied and collected in respect of any motor vehicle which was registe in any Union Territory or any other State under the provisions of the M Vehicles Act, 1988, prior to the period of fifteen months or more from the date which it is registered in the State. The petitioner relies on the statement contain such details of registrations and transfers. From this itself it is not possible record a favourable finding. Therefore, to enable the Assessing Officer to ve the factual position, and apply the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act we dee proper to set aside the impugned assessment order passed by the first respond bearing R.C.No.VJ2-04-1-2099/2000-01/APGST, dated 24.02.2005, and notice dated 06.09.2005. The petitioner is also given liberty to submit a wri explanation as to how it is entitled for exemption from the payment of entry tax the motor vehicles owned by them. Such explanation shall be considered by first respondent before passing any order as to the exigibility of the vehic owned by the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly without any order a costs. _____________ (V.V.S. RAO ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN 30.06.2011 vs [1] AIR 1978 SC 8