IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8891 of 2009 Between: M/s. LCL-IJM II - Interiors International (P) Limited 12th Square Building, 8-2-686/B/6/A, 1st Floor, B-1, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. Rep. by its Director, Sri D. Sreenivasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, 2nd Floor, Commercial Taxes complex, Opp. Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, 4th floor, "B" Block, Mayur Kushal Complex, Near Chermas, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, 4th floor, "B" Block, Mayur Kushal Complex, Near Chermas, Abids, Hyderabad. 4 The Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Punjagutta Division, 7th Floor, Mayur Kushal Complex, Near Chermas, Abids, 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 or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dt.31-3-2009 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No. L.III(2) 136/2009 dt.31-3-2009 passed by the 1st respondent in CCT's Ref.No. L.III(2) 136/2009, dt.31-3-2009 rejecting stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.1,71,97,232/- as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the facts and law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.R.VISWANATH Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAJI REDDY, SPECIAL STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Ramesh Ranganathan, J) Rule. Heard both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Aggrieved by the order of revisional authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority before which the matter is said to be still pending. It is evident from the order of the revisional authority that the petitioner had cited several judgments, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Larsen & Tourbo Ltd.,[1] in support of their contention that, even if there is no privity of contract between the contractee and the sub-contractor, it would not do away the principle of transfer of property by the sub-contractor by employing the same on the property belonging to the accretion of property in goods, that it was subject to the contract to the contrary and that, in such a case, the works executed by a sub-contractor resulted in a single transaction and not in multiple transactions. While the afore-mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court has been extracted in the order of the revisional authority, the Additional Commissioner, while passing the impugned order rejecting the application of stay preferred by the petitioner, has referred merely to the order of the revisional authority but has not dealt with any of the judgments referred to therein. The petitioner has no other remedy against the order of the Additional Commissioner, refusing to grant stay, except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find substantial force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that failure on the part of the Additional Commissioner to follow the law laid down in the Judgments of the Supreme Court and several High Courts would vitiate the impugned order. Though learned Counsel would request us to examine the said judgments in detail, we do not propose to do so as the Additional Commissioner ought to have, in the first instance, examined those judgments and, if applicable to the case on hand, to follow the law laid down therein. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner, refusing to grant stay, is set aside. The matter stands remanded for his consideration afresh. The Additional Commissioner shall, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass orders afresh in accordance with law. Till orders are passed afresh by the Additional Commissioner, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. No costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 28-04-2009 bnr [1] (2008) 17 VST 1 (SC)