IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8033 of 2009 Between: M/s. Siddardha Constructions Private Limited, Swapna Constructions JV, H.No. 1-8-865, 14/3RT, Sree Nilayam, Prakash nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016, Rep. by its Lead Partner, Sri N. Surendra Babu. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary, Irrigation & CAD (Telangana Region), Government of Andrha Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer, AMRP SLBC, 6th Floor, Ganga Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The Superintending Engineer, (I&CAD), AMRP Circle No. II, G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda, Nalgondas District. 5 The Executive Engineer, AMRP Division No. VII, Thipparthy, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 6 The Pay and Accounts officer, AMRP Circle No. II, G.V. Gudem, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 7 The Commercial Tax Officer, Begumpet Circle, 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that (1) the Memo No. 602/F8 (10/2006, dated 14-3-2007 issued by the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, invalid, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, Rules made there under, G.O.Ms.No's 11 dated 29-07-2005 and unsustainable. (2) The Petitioner is entitled for payment/reimbursement of differential VAT Component of 1.2% on the entire value of work done in terms of the provisions of the G.O.Ms.No. 11 dt. 29-07-2005, read with Clause 105.4 of the Agreement; (3) Consequently direct the respondents 3 to 6 to pay the difference 1.2% of the amount on the total value of the work relating to the Agreement No. 21/SE/2004-2005, dated 19-03-2005 and (4) to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 6: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: Government Pleader for Irrigation Counsel for Respondent No. 7: Government Pleader for Commercial Tax The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. 2. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Government Pleaders appearing for the respondent authorities. 3. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 4. The petitioner is a contractor, who had entered into a contract with Irrigation Department. It is an admitted fact that 4% of Value Added Tax (VAT) had been deducted by Irrigation Department from the amount payable to the petitioner, but, in fact, has given credit to the petitioner to the tune of only 2.8%. So, it is an admitted fact that 1.2% of the amount of tax is to be paid by respondent No. 5 to the petitioner herein. 5. The learned Government Pleader has fairly submitted that respondent No. 5 shall do the needful for making payment of the amount payable to the petitioner, if it makes an application to that effect. 6. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall, after calculating the amount payable to it, submit an application to respondent No.5 and on receipt of such an application, respondent No. 5 shall do the needful for making payment of 1.2% of the amount of which no credit has been given so far to the petitioner. 7. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of as allowed. 8. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 20th April, 2009. Note: Furnish CC in two days. B/O ks