IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9690 of 2008 Between: M/s. HES Infra Private Limited, 29-32-7, Janda Panja Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, rep. by its Managing Director, Sri I.V.R. Krishnam Raju. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commercial Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. 2 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, 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, order, direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare that the instructions issued by the second respondent in CCT's Ref.ENFT.No.B3/17/AC-III/2007-08, dated 03.01.2008 are contrary to the provisions of the CST Act, 1956 and are therefore unconstitutional and accordingly set aside the orders of the first respondent dated 27.03.2008 passed in TIN No.28760152265 and the certificate of registration dated 09.04.2008 issued in TIN No.28760152265. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents.: SPL. STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9690 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the instructions issued by the second respondent in CCT's Ref.ENFT.No.B3/17/AC-III/2007-08, dated 03.01.2008 are contrary to the provisions of the CST Act, 1956 and are therefore unconstitutional and accordingly set aside the orders of the first respondent dated 27.03.2008 passed in TIN No.28760152265 and the certificate of registration dated 09.04.2008 issued in TIN No.28760152265. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued circular instructions stating that the Works Contractors are not entitled to issue C forms against the inter-state purchase of any materials or goods and that a contractor, trader, lessor etc., are all placed on par and are recognized as registered dealers under the CSTM Act and all such registered dealers are entitled to the privileges and concessions contained in the provisions of the CST Act and a contractor cannot be denied a benefit which a trader registered under the CST Act enjoys and the instructions of the 2nd respondent not to include dumpers/tippers, lubricants, High Speed Diesel Oil, L.D.O., Machinery Spares, Lab Equipment/Spare parts, Plant & Machinery, Earth Moving Equipments in the certificate of registration of a contractor brings out a hostile discrimination, which is prohibited under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned instructions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained. Consequently, notices were served on the dealers and the dealers filed their objections, on which, the 1st respondent issued the order dated 27.3.2008 holding that the request made by the dealer to withdraw the notice proposed to cancel the items of goods incorporated in Certificate of Registration under CST Act ’56 (Form B) is not considered and the proposal made in the notice is confirmed with reference to the conditions laid down under the CST Act. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the objections raised by the dealers on the instructions issued by the 2nd respondent have been examined in detail and consequently, the order impugned has been passed. The impugned order itself goes to show that it is subject to appeal. No material has been placed before the Court to show that the petitioner approached the appellate authority and has questioned the order impugned as well as the instructions of the 2nd respondent. Under the above circumstances, We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition in view of the alternative remedy of statutory appeal that is available against the order impugned herein. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to avail the remedies that are available under law. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to return the original order impugned herein subject to substituting the same with copies. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 17th June, 2008 Nn/gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:9690 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 17/06/2008