IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 24363 of 2008 Between: 1 V. Narayana Rao, S/o. Viswanatham, Janapadu Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District. 2 A. siva Nagireddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Flat No. 412-C, Golden Towers, Krishna Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 Y. Appa Rao, S/o. Rama Kotaiah, R/o. Flat No.5, Anjanadri Block, Swamiji Apartments, 6/2 Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer (R&B), Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Tenali, Guntur District. 5 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 6 The Superintendent Engineer, Panchayatraj Circle, Guntur, Guntur District. 7 The Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj Division, Guntur, Guntur District. 8 The Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj Division, Tenali, Guntur District. 9 The Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj Division, Narsaraopet, Guntur District. 10 The Pay and Accounts Officer (W&P), Guntur, Guntur District. 11 The Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer, Lingamguntla, Narsaraopet, Guntur District. 12 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus i. Declaring that the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dated 14.03.2007 issued by the 1st Respondent is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Value Added Tax Act and the rules made thereunder: ii. The petitioners are entitled for addition of VAT Component of 4 % on the entire value of work done at the time of payment of each bill in terms of G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 29.07.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.141 dated 27.07.2006 and section 22(3) of the A.P.VAT Act. iii. Declaring the action of the respondents in adding only 1.4% at the time of payment of each bill i.e., less than 4% as arbitrary and illegal contrary to the provisions of the act and iv. Direct the respondents to pay the diﬀerence of 2.6% amount on the total value of the work relating to the agreements entered into between the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 9 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Heard both sides. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel on either side submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 484 of 2008 dated 18.01.2008. However, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes submitted that though the petitioner states that he has paid 4% tax on the entire work done, it has to be ascertained while processing the ﬁnal bill. Following the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with a direction to the respondents not to remit any further amount in respect of deductions already made pursuant to the Memo dated 14.03.2007 of the ﬁrst respondent, while processing the ﬁnal bill, however, subject to the payment of 4% which is stated to have been made by the petitioner. It is needless to mention, as agreed by the counsel on either side, that the balance of 2.6% has to be added by the respondents in the bills. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan November 7, 2008 MAS