IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.9802 of 2008 Between: M/s. Maruti Constructions, Special Class Contractors, H.No.54-14/1-9/5, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada-520008, Krsihna District rep. by its Managing Partner, D. Nageswara Prasad. ...PETITIONER 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) Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Superintendent Engineer (R&B) Circle, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 6 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Tenali, Guntur District. 7 The Pay and Accounts Officer, (W&P) Vijayawada, Krishna District. 8 The Pay and Accounts Officer, (W&P) Guntur, Guntur District. 9 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), L.T.U., Division No.II, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 declaring that (1) the Memo.NO.602/F8(1)2006, dated 14.3.2007 issued by the 1st respondent is arbitrary, illegal, invalid, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Value added Tax Act, Rules, made there under, G.O.Ms.Nos.11 dt.29-07-2005 and 141 dt.27-07-2006, 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 the G.O.Ms.No.11 dt.29-07-2005, 141, dt.27-07-2006 and Section 22(3) of the A.P.VAT Act, (3) 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, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax and the Government orders in force as well as the terms of the agreement and (4) Consequently direct the respondents to pay the difference 2.6% amount on the total value of the work relating to the Agreement Nos.96 and 130/2007-08 to the petitioner; and (5) to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.9802 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both the sides. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. At the time of hearing, learned counsel on either side submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.484 of 2008 dated 18.01.2008. However, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax 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 respondentNos.2 to 8 not to remit any further amount to the fifth respondent 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 that, as agreed by the counsel on either side, the balance of 2.6% has to be added by respondent Nos.2 to 8 in the bills. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (C.Y.SOMAYAJULU, J) 30th April 2008 RRB