IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5638 of 2009 Between: M/s. Circar Jute Mills Private Limited, A Private Limited Company, having its Registered Office at Kodurupadu Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, represented by its Managing Director Mr. Gaurang Bhartia S/o. Sri Pratyush Bhartia R/o. Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner/CT Eluru Division, Eluru. 3 Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ, direction or order especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 18.01.2003 as a nullity and void ab initio, without the authority of law, not in public interest and consequently set aside the Revisional Order dated 24.7.2008 passed by Respondent No.2 and pass such other order(s). Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.RAVI Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. Raji Reddy, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, J) The validity of the order of the Government, in G.O.Ms. No. 63, dated 18-01-2003, is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the said G.O cannot have retrospective operation from 11- 03-2002. This Court, in M/s. Sri Venkata Balaji Jute Mills Private Limited vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 7455 and 8054 of 2003 and 17948 of 2007, dated 29-10- 2007), held that G.O.Ms.No. 63, dated 18-01-2003, whereby certain benefits granted to dealers earlier was sought to be withdrawn with retrospective effect from 11.03.2002, was liable to be struck down as the said G.O could not operate prior to the date of its issuance on 18- 01-2003. The assessment year in the present case is 2002-03. Once the G.O is held to apply prospectively only from 18-01-2003, the said G.O cannot be applied, to deny the petitioner the benefits available, for the period 01-04-2002 to 17-01-2003. With regards the period 18-01- 2003 to 31-03-2003, Sri S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that an application is proposed to be made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information as to the reasons for issuance of the said G.O withdrawing the benefit granted earlier to dealers. Learned counsel would submit that it would suffice if liberty is granted to the petitioner, if need be, to approach the Court later, for the assessment period from 18-01-2003 to 31-03-2003. Liberty is granted. G.O.Ms.No. 63, dated 18-01-2003, to the limited extent the said order was given retrospective effect from 11-03- 2002 is struck down and the writ petition is partly allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 23rd April, 2009. ks