IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22358 of 2008 Between: M/s. M. Bhanu Prakash, a partnership firm, at Kothakota, Mahabubnagar District, Rep by its Managing partner, M. Bhanu Prakash ..... PETITIONER A N D 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning, (Works and Projects) Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer, R & B, Mahabubnagar. 3 The Executive Engineer, R & B, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Executive Engineer, R & B, Mahabubnagar. 5 The Commercial Tax Officer, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. 6 The Pay & Accounts Officer, Mahabubnagar. .....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 to issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction declaring the Memo No. 602/F8(1)/2006 dt. 14-3-2007 issued by the ﬁrst respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of AP VAT ACT and Rules made thereunder and to consequently hold that petitioner is entitled for addition of 4 % toward VAT at the time of payment of each bill, in terms of provisions of GO Ms.No. 11 dt. 29-7-2005, G.O. Rt.No. 141 dt. 27-7-2006 and under Section 22 (3) of AP VAT Act by directing the Respondents to pay the difference of 2.6% amount on the total value of works, to the petitioner, Award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Division Bench of this Court made the following order : Order follows 2nd page. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 22358 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 1. Heard both sides. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. 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 the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.484 of 2008, dated 18.1.2008. However, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax 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. 3. 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 14.3.2007 of the 1st 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 that, as agreed by the counsel on either side, the balance of 2.6% has to be added by the respondents in the bills. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. -------------------------------------- --------- JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 16-10-2008. I s L N B : Furnish CC tomorrow B/o. I s L ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}