THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.23984, 24075 and 24084 OF 2010 Dated:01.10.2010 Between: M/s.Royal Park (Unit of Sri Adilakshmi Property Developers Private Limited), D.No.19-1-107, Kosurivari Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Represented by its Managing Director, Sri Dwarampudi Veerabhadra Reddy .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., By its Secretary, Youth Advancement Tourism And Culture (Tourism) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.23984, 24075 and 24084 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) M/s.Royal Park, a three star hotel at Kakinada, is promoted by M/s.Sri Adilaxmi Property Developers Private Limited. They constructed their hotel allegedly investing huge funds exceeding Rs.10,00,00,000/-, and commenced their commercial operations with effect from 08.11.2008, so as to avail incentives under the Tourism Policy, 1998 vide orders of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.6, Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture (Tourism) Department, dated 18.12.1998. They approached the second respondent, by way of a communication vide Letter No.1255/TP/C1/2009, dated 29.08.2009. The second respondent, while enclosing a list of six hotels including the petitioner, requested the first respondent to place the proposal for incentives before the State Level Committee (for brevity, the SLC) for issuing Eligibility Certificate for claiming incentives. Alleging that the first respondent has not constituted the SLC so far and, in the meanwhile the fifth respondent had assessed the petitioner to Luxury Tax as well as the Value Added Tax (VAT), the petitioner filed the instant three Writ Petitions seeking the prayer sought for in W.P.No.23984 of 2010, which is almost similar to the prayer in the other two Writ Petitions. It is as under. a) Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the 1st respondent to convene the State Level Committee (as recommended by the 2nd respondent) within certain prescribed period of time to decide on the issue of Eligibility Certificate to the petitioner company to enable it to avail itself of the incentives promised under the G.O.Ms.No.6, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (T) dated 18.12.1998 and reiterated in G.O.Ms.No.14, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (T) dated 04.09.2008 relying on which petitioner company has altered its position. b) Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the impugned orders of 4th and 5th respondents dated 30.08.2010 and 18.01.2010 respectively as arbitrary and illegal and quash the same. c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents from demanding the taxes till a decision is taken by the State Level Committee on the grant of incentives to the petitioner company. The counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice two unreported orders in W.P.No.16314 of 2004, dated 12.10.2004 and W.P.No.6819 of 2004, dated 24.08.2004. In both these orders, this Court directed the State Level Tourism Promotion Board to consider the recommendation made by the Director, Department of Tourism. As per the Policy, the request of the Tourism Units for incentives has to be placed before the SLC who are empowered to issue the Eligibility Certificate. The counsel asserts that so far the first respondent has neither rejected the proposal nor constituted the SLC. Therefore, instead of keeping the matter pending, we are inclined to dispose of the matter in the following manner. a) The first respondent shall constitute a State Level Committee to consider the proposal of the second respondent vide letter No.1255/TP/C1/2009, dated 29.08.2009. The said Committee may meet, as expeditiously as possible, and take the necessary decision. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. b) The counsel for the petitioner made a passionate plea to restrain the fifth respondent from collecting Luxury Tax as per the assessment order being Luxury No.1/2009-10, dated 18.01.2010, which is confirmed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner vide Order No.1784, dated 30.08.2010. We do not feel countenanced to accept the prayer, as the petitioner has remedy of seeking refund in case his eligibility is certified by the SLC. Therefore, we direct the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for necessary incentives under the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1995. c) We make it clear that the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, except to the extent provided under Section 7 read with Schedule-I, does not confer any power on the State to exempt any TOT dealer or VAT dealer from paying VAT. These Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no other as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 01.10.2010 KH