THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 26422 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J). Several provisions of Union and State Legislations are challenged in this writ petition and a variety of reliefs are sought namely (a) declaring Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act, 2005 read with Section 2(28) and explanation IV thereof being ultra vires Entry 55 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India amounting to tax on advertisement in the guise of levy of sales tax under Article 366(29-A(d) read with Entry 54 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India, in so far as the said levy is on display of advertisements by the petitioner; (b) declaring Section 4(8) of APVAT Act, 2005 read with Section 2(28) Explanation IV thereof taxing licensing of property without there being transfer of the right to use resulting in effective control and possession as ‘deemed sale’, as ultra vires Entry 54 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India read with Article 366 (29A)(d) thereof; (c) declaring Section 65 (105)(e), 65(2) and 65(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 as ultra vires Entry 55 of List II of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India; (d) declaring both levy of sales tax and service tax on the petitioner to be not authorised by law and ultra vires Article 226 and 300A of the Constitution of India; (e) declaring ultra vires levy of lease tax under Section 4(8) on licensing of advertisement space resulting in display of advertisements by the petitioner being levy on immovable property, (f) declaring the provisions of Section 67 (4) (ii) and (iii) and 33(1) (c) of APVAT Act, 2005 ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1) (g) read with 19(6), 245, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India; (g) declaring Circular No. AIII(3)/61/2009 dt. 12.3.2009 of CCT and decision of ARC dt. 2.7.2009 in A.R.Com/43/2008 in CCT’s Ref.No. PMT/P&L/A.T.Com/2005 dt. 13.4.2005 as ultra vires Entry 55 of List-II of VII Schedule to the Constitution of India, where under taxes on advertisements were specifically reserved to local bodies vide Section 197(i) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as applicable to all Corporations in the State of A.P. and Section 114 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 as applicable to all municipalities in the State of A.P. and as legislated by the State of A.P. and also ultra vires Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) read with 19(6), 245, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; (h) declaring Circular No. AIII(3)/61/2009 dt. 12.3.2009 of CCT and decision of ARC dt. 2.7.2009 in A.R.Com/43/2008 in CCT’s Ref.No. PMT/P&L/A.R..Com/2005 dt. 13.4.2009 as against binding precedents of the Hon’ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in petitioner’s own case in T.A.No. 526 and 528 of 1996 reported in 24 APSTJ 3 and also against Hon’ble High Court decision in T.A.No. 69 of 1998 reported in 118 STC 39 in petitioner’s own case and therefore not binding on the petitioner applying principles laid down by the Apex Court in case of CCEC vs. Ratan Melting Works—2008(231)ELT 22 Supreme Court; (i) to call for the record on the file of the 1st respondent relating to assessment order dt. 27.4.2011 for the year 2005-06 to 2007-08 or 209-10 under APVAT Act 2005 and quash the same as ultra vires Entries 54 & 55 of List-II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1) (g) read with 19(6), 245, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may pass in the circumstances of the case; and (j) to call for the record on the file of the 4th respondent relating to registration under service tax as service provider vide Registration No. AAFCS4613 K ST 001 dt. 29.3.2005 and to quash the registration certificate and order deregistration of the petitioner as such registration to pay service tax is ultra vires Entry 55 of List-II of the VIII Schedule to the Constitution of India. Against the order of assessment passed by the 1st respondent dt. 27.4.2011 under the provisions of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 for the tax period 2005-06 to 2009-10, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur on 13.6.2011. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.Ravi Shankar Jandyala states that the challenge to the vires of the several statutes enumerated in the writ petition are not being pursued and that the petitioner is content if the Appellate Authority is directed to consider the appeal in the light of the Judgement of a learned Division Bench of this court in W.P.No. 23861 of 2009 and batch dt. 11.2.2011. In view of the submission on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order dt. 27.4.2011 passed by the 1st respondent, in accordance with law and in the light of the Judgement of this Court referred to supra. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 21.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 26422 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J). Dt. 21.09.2011.