IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14988 of 2002 Between: M/s. Pratap Cashew Company Private Limited Exporters, Importers & Manufacturers, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Mr. T. Rajendran. Srikakulam District, Kasibugga - 532 222, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Profession Tax Officer, (Deputy Commercial Tax Officer), Dept. Commercial Tax Kasibugga. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction declaring that the definition of person in Section 2(j) and Explanation-I to the First Schedule of the AP Taxes on Profession, Trade, Callings and Employment Act, 1987 as amended is unconstitutional and violative of Article 276(2) of the Constitution of India in so far as they provided for levy of profession tax by treating every branch of self- employed assessee as deemed separate assessee for the purpose of levying of profession tax and further declare that the Petitioner is liable to pay profession tax at Rs. 2,500/- per annum only irrespective of number of branches/offices it has in the State of Andhra Pradesh and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.DWARAKANATH Counsel for the Respondent No.: SPL GP FOR TAXES The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 14988 of 2002 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question involved in the instant case, with regard to the liability of the professional tax, is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Karnataka Bank Ltd., v. State of A.P. and others[1]. Hence, in view of the judgment, referred to above, nothing remains to be considered afresh, in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J. Dt.05-03-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU} [1] (2008) 12 VST 459 (SC)