THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7038 of 2011 March 23, 2011 Between: M/s.Indo Fab Engineers, Hyderabad represented by its Proprietor, Mr.B.Dinesh … Petitioner AND The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Hyderabad And another … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7038 of 2011 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, and at their request the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The revisional proceedings dated 27.1.2011, passed under Section 32(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the Act) for the period 2006-07 and 2008-09 is under challenge in this writ petition as being arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, a proprietary concern carrying on business in the manufacture of valves for compressed gas cylinder, and trading in these goods, is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. For the period 2006-07 and 2008-09, the order of assessment was passed on 25.5.2009. The first respondent, in exercise of his powers under Sections 32(1) and (2) of the Act, proposed to revise the assessment proceedings and issued notice dated 21.10.2010 for the periods 2006- 07 and 2008-09. The petitioner submitted their objections thereto despite which the revisional order, impugned in this writ petition, is passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in view of the advance ruling in A.R.Com/141/2006, dated 22.11.2006 in the case of Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Limited (Dr.Reddy’s), the impugned order of assessment is illegal, as the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority is binding on the first respondent; and Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) at 4% could not have been deducted on the amounts paid to the contractor for construction of the factory building in as much as there is no notification issued by the Commissioner under Section 22(3) of the Act. The learned Special Standing Counsel, on instructions, would fairly state that the second respondent, while exercising his powers of revision, ought to have examined whether the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority in Dr.Reddy’s was applicable to the petitioner’s case as, under Section 67(4)(iii) of the Act, the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority is binding on all officers below the rank of the Commissioner. As the first respondent has not considered the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority in Dr.Reddy’s, we consider it appropriate to set aside the revisional order, and remand the matter back to the first respondent for consideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of the Advance Ruling Authority’s clarification in the case of Dr.Reddy’s. As the impugned revisional order is being set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for his consideration afresh, the first respondent shall consider all other objections, including the power to deduct tax at source under Section 22(3) of the Act, while passing a fresh order of revision in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) March 23, 2011 YS