IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10839 of 2008 Between: M/s Aban Offshore Limited, Janapriya Crest,113, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.K.Chandru. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax Officer, Kakindada Circle, Pithapuram Road, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction setting aside the endorsement dated 13.5.2008 of the Respondent and direct him to issue the remaining 42 CST way bills as requested by the Petitioner in its letter dated 21.12.2007, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner is a Limited Company undertaking offshore drilling works in the high seas bordering the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as Orrisa. Its work place and office is located at Kakinada. In the course of its activity, it imports machinery from various places including Chennai. For transporting the machinery from various places and to the place of work, CST waybill is necessary. The petitioner made several applications to the respondent herein for issuance of CST waybill to enable it to transport machinery from Chennai to Paradeep Port, Orrisa, via Kakinada. The respondent had taken a view that the necessity to issue CST waybill would arise only when delivery takes place in pursuance of the sale and other related purposes, vide its endorsement dated 13.05.2008. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same and seeks necessary directions from, this court. The respondent filed counter affidavit. He explains the relevancy of the CST waybill and ultimately stated that the petitioner would need CST waybill to be issued by the respondent only to transport the goods from Kakinada to the port in the state of Orrisa. It is also explained that issuance of CST waybills for transporting goods from Chennai to Andhra Pradesh, is beyond the scope of the relevant provisions, vis- à-vis the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. Though arguments are advanced on the larger issue, but in view of the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit, we are of the view that discussion relating to this issue is obviated. In clear terms, the respondent had stated that he never denied CST waybills for transporting the goods from Kakinda yard to other places. The insistence by the petitioner for the issuance of waybills covering transport f r o m Chennai to Kakinada was on the basis of the apprehension. The apprehension is belied with the stand taken by the respondent. Once it has emerged that the respondent had expressed his willingness to issue CST waybills for transportation of the goods, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. The writ petition is disposed of taking on record the statement made by the respondent in the counter affidavit. It is needless to observe that the respondent shall issue CST waybills to the petitioner to enable it to transport the machinery from Kakinda to Pradeep Port, Orrisa, as and when applied for. ___________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J. ____________________ Ramesh Ranganathan, J. May 28, 2008 Copy in a week. //BO// MAS