THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.15020 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Heard Sri M.Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. At their request, the Writ Petition is being taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The action of the respondents in detaining goods belonging to the petitioner, through notice dated 05.04.2010 purportedly issued under Rule 56 (1) (a) of the A.P. Vat Rules, and collecting Rs.1,34,506/- from them towards tax and penalty, is under challenge in this Writ Petition, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith refund the amount collected from them with interest at 24% per annum. The petitioner purchased a Jaw Crusher from Parishram Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Vadodara, Gujarat State, on 30.03.2010 and paid all taxes including Central Sales Tax, Central Excise duty etc. The second respondent detained the goods at Chiragpally border check post along with the truck, and demanded payment of tax of Rs.1,34,506/. The petitioner paid the said amount of Rs.1,34,506/- under protest in order to avoid detention of the goods and to avoid damage being caused to the vehicle. Without submitting their objections to the notice issued, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Sri M.Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the goods in question do not fall within the ambit of Section 5 of the A.P. Vat Act, 2005, and that the respondents have neither the authority nor the power to levy tax on such goods. Learned counsel would submit that, since the second respondent lacks jurisdiction, the Writ Petition is maintainable. All that the second respondent has done is to issue a detention order, and to call upon the petitioner to submit their objections. Since the petitioner can as well submit their objections, including on the question of the second respondent’s lack of jurisdiction, we do not see any reason to set aside the order under challenge or to direct the respondents to refund the amount collected. It would suffice to hold that in case that the petitioner submits its objections to the second respondent within three {3} weeks from today, the second respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereupon within a period of four {4} weeks thereafter, including on the question of jurisdiction. The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 29th June 2010 RRB