IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14648 of 2008 Between: M/s S.Shivraj Reddy Constructions, 3-6-69/B13 (New No.92), Avanthi Nagar Colony, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Partner, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning (Works and Projects) Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer(R&B) City Roads Division at Masab Tank Hyderabad 3 The Executive Engineer (R & B), City Roads Dvision at Masab Tank ,Hyderabad. 4 The Executive Engineer (R & B), Roads Division at Goshamahal, Hyderabad. 5 The Pay and Accounts Officer, Ranga Reddy district, Near Gandhi Bhavan at Nampally, Hyderabad. 6 The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or Writs, order or Direction (1) Declaring the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006 dated 14-3-2007 issued by the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal, invalid, contrary to the provisions of the AP Value Added Tax Act, Rules made thereunder, GOMs Nos. 11 dated 29-7-2005 and G.O.Ms.No.141 dated 27-7-2006 and unsustainable. (2) The Petitioner is 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 the provisions of G.O.M.s.No.11 dated 29-7-2005, G.O.Ms.No.141 dated 27-7-2006 and Section 22 (3) of the A.P. VAT Act. (3) Declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 4 in adding only 1.4 % tax to the estimated cost of the work and effecting 4% tax towards VAT at the time of payment of each bill in respect of some works, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the AP Value Added Tax and the Government Orders in force as well as the terms of the agreement, and (4) Consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 to pay the difference 2.6 % amount on the total value of the works, and (5) Award costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) The writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring that the Memo No.602/F8(1)/2006, dated 14-3- 2007 issued by the 1st respondent has no application to the petitioner, who opted for payment of tax under composition scheme as per Section 4 (7)(b) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, that the petitioner is entitled for addition of VAT component of 4% on the entire work done and deduction at the time of payment of each bill in terms of the provisions of agreement read with G.O. 141, dated 27-7-2006 and Section 22(3) of the A.P. VAT Act and to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in adding and/or deducting different amounts lesser than 4% and issuing TCS Certificate to the said amount as illegal and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Value Added Tax and Government orders in force as well as the terms of the agreement and consequently to direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to pay the difference amount of 2.6% amount on the total value of the works. The petitioner company is a registered Dealer under the APGST Act - now under A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the 6th respondent. The petitioner is carrying on the business in execution of ‘Work Contracts’. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid 1.4% on total value to the 6th respondent and hence, the petitioner is entitled for refund of 4% on total value from the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. But, however, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the balance of 1.4% has already paid and he is entitled for refund from the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has paid 4% in total. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes and the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, there shall be a direction to the respondents 2 to 5 not to remit any further amount to the 6th respondent in respect of the deductions already made pursuant to the Memo dated 14-3-2007 of the 1st respondent, while processing the final bill. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari. ________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan. July 14, 2008 MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}