IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 27352 of 2008 BETWEEN: Y.Sai Reddy S/o. Hanmantha Reddy, 1-7-578/2 Gemeni Colony Ram Nagar, Hyderabad-20 ... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary& Finance & Planning (Workers and Projects) Department At Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Superintending Engineer R&B Rural Circle at Balkampet Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Engineer R&B Roads Division at Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 4 The Commerical Tax Officer Musheerabad Office at Mayur Kushal Towers V Floor Abids Hyderabad. 5 The Pay& Accounts Officer Ranga Reddy District at Nampally Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dt 14-03-2007 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of APVAT act and Rules made there and to consequently hold that petitioner is entitled for addition of 4% on the entire value of work done and deduction of 4% towards VAT at the time of payment of each bill in terms of provisions of GO Ms No.11 dt 29-07-2005 Go Rt No.141 dt 27-07-2006 under Section 22(3) of APVAT act by directing the respondents to pay the difference of 2.6% amount on the total value works to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 5: GP FOR FINANCE Counsel for Respondent No.2 & 3: GP FOR R & B Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dated 14.03.2007 issued by the first respondent. 2. The first respondent by a subsequent Memo.No.14420/R.I(2)/08-1 dated 17.12.2008 clarified that the Government ratifies the action of the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Roads in having adopted 4% VAT in the estimates sanctioned after the receipt of amendment to AP VAT Act 2005 and further ratifies the action of the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Roads in having adopted 4% VAT in the working estimates of those who have obtained the Court orders. 3. In the light of the subsequent memo dated 17.12.2008 issued by the first respondent the mischief occasioned by the earlier memo dated 14.03.2007 does not subsist and the petitioner would be entitled for addition of 4% on the entire value of work done and deduction of 4% towards VAT at the time of payment of each bill, in terms of provisions of Section 22(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J December 31, 2008 DSK